Studies in Irish Mythology

Grigory Bondarenko

Studies in Irish Mythology

Grigory Bondarenko

curach bhán publications2014

Berlin

domháire óg

Bibliographische Information der Deutschen NationalbibliothekDie Deutschen Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie;detaillierte bibliographische Daten sind im Internet unter http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

Grigory Bondarenko:Studies in Irish MythologyISBN: 978-3-942002-15-8

© 2014 by Grigory Bondarenko and curach bhán publications – daniel büchnerVerlag für Kunst & KulturwissenschaftenMalplaquetstr. 25 – D-13347 Berlin – Germanyhttp://www.curach-bhan.com

Alle Rechte, auch die der Übersetzung, des auszugsweisen Nachdrucks, der Herstellung von Microfilmen,der digitalen und fotomechanischen Wiedergabe, vorbehalten.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any electronic,mechanical or other means, including photocopying and recording, or otherwise without priorwritten consent of the publishers.

Gedruckt auf säurefreiem und alterungsbeständigem Papier gemäß ISO9706.

Satz: curach bhán publicationsDruck: SDL Digitaler Buchdruck, Berlin

Printed in Germany 2014

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

1 Hiberno-Rossica: ‘knowledge in the clouds’ in Old Irish and Old Russian . . . . . . . . 1

2 Cú Roí and Svyatogor: a study in chthonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3 Autochthons and otherworlds in Celtic and Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4 The significance of pentads in Early Irish and Indian sources:the case of five directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5 The five primeval trees in Early Irish, Gnostic and Manichaean cosmologies . . . . 57

6 The alliterative poem Eó Rossa from the Dindṡenchas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

7 The Dindṡenchas of Irarus: the king, the druid and the probable tree . . . . . . . . . . . 77

8 The king in exile in Airne Fíngein: power and pursuit in Early Irish literature . . 99

9 Conn Cétchathach: the image of ideal kingship in Early Medieval Ireland . . . . . 113

10 Búaid Cuinn, rígróit rogaidi—an alliterative poemfrom the Dindṡenchas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

11 Roads and knowledge in Togail Bruidne Da Derga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

12 Oral past and written present in ‘The Finding of the Táin’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

13 The migration of the soul in Early Irish tales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

14 Goidelic hydronyms in Ptolemy’s Geography: myth behind the name . . . . . . . . . 197

15 Swineherds in Celtic lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

16 Fintan mac Bóchra: Irish synthetic history revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Index of Personal Names and Ethnonyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271Index of Places and Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275Index of Texts and Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Introduction

Since my first encounters with Irish and British scholars, or the general publicin those countries, I have often been confronted with the question as to why Ihave developed an interest in early Irish literature and mythology. To answerthis, I always reminded these inquirers of the great Celtic scholars from CentralEurope such as KunoMeyer, Julius Pokorny or RudolfThurneysen.What is more,I was always surprised to discover to what extent the early Irish literary tradition,with all its conflicts, heroes and learned men, is underestimated in Ireland itselfor in the English-speaking world. Early Irish literature, as one of the richestvernacular literatures in medieval Europe, is much less known to the generalpublic than Old Norse sagas or the Old English epic ‘Beowulf’. It is of courserather difficult in the field of Celtic studies to find the right balance betweenthe scientific, sceptical, hardcore textual analysis and popular vulgarisation onthe subject of Celtic myths and legends. When taking the “scientific approach”one can sometimes miss the most overt message of the text, whereas taking the“popular approach”, generalisation often suppresses the delicate and complexpuzzle of epochs and realities within the text. For me the most interesting andpromising undertaking in my research was always to dig and uncover hiddenlayers and meanings within early medieval Irish texts, notwithstanding thatsometimes the results are not what one might expect to find.

Some chapters of this book, the result of about ten years research, werepublished previously as articles in different periodicals and proceedings of con-ferences (see p. xi). They deal mostly with mythological narratives, both proseand metrical, composed and written down in early medieval Ireland in Old andMiddle Irish.

I strongly believe that presenting them now—reworked and updated—as asingle book, constitutes an integral text towards a reconstruction of an earlyIrish mythological worldview within the broader context of Indo-European andEurasian mythologies.

Occasionally we will have to go back to Continental Celtic evidence, whetherto inscriptions in Gaulish, to archaeological material or to Classical Graeco-Roman sources. I have to stress that there are practically no mythological ac-counts dealing with gods and heroes deriving from Continental Celtic regions orfrom ancient Celtic Britain. This is why the term ‘Celtic mythology’ can hardlybe used when discussing the whole compendium of surviving data on ancientCeltic religion. Mythology is essentially a part of a religious system, but not allreligious phenomena can be labelled as mythology.

viii

But what do I mean when I speak of ‘mythos’, ‘mythology’ or ‘mythological’in an early Irish context? In the first place, I take mythos as a general mentaland social phenomenon alongside ethos, logos or eros. This is the whole body oforal and written traditional, secular narratives which has a special importanceand meaning within the existence of any culture or society. When we discuss‘mythology’ as such, we mean the structured system of myths put in order firstby medieval literati and later by modern researchers where modern ‘logos’ takesover from traditional ‘mythos’.

There are different definitions of ‘myth’ and ‘mythological’ among comparat-ive mythologists, folklorists, and philosophers. It would be sufficient to say thatfor this study I take myth as a text (written or oral) where a content and plotinvolving supernatural beings (such as gods, monsters, and divine heroes) andphenomena, such as their acts, events, circumstances, and all that befell them, aregiven in and as certain specific patterns. Consequently myth itself is a form ofconsciousness which realises itself through the content of such texts and throughthe perception of this content (Piatigorsky 1993: 61, 67). I also agree with MacCana’s implication that these texts had exemplary character ‘recounting cosmicand cultural beginnings, underpinning the institutions that ensure the survivaland well-being of society, and representing in symbolic terms man’s relation-ships with his environment and with the supernatural powers who act uponit’ (Mac Cana 2011: 25). I use “mythological” to designate something pertain-ing to myth or to the study of myth. Moreover, I do not imply here that mythsreflected in early Irish literature necessarily go back to a pre-Christian period,as they could have developed within the period of transition in early medievalIreland. Pre-Christian patterns were still in use in the period of transition, butwe also have examples of myths where Christian imagery and characters areinvolved, such as angels, saints and Biblical characters. Some myths discussedand analyzed in the book could have been generated or modified substantially inthe early Christian period in a literary environment where native and Christianelements are hardly distinguishable.

Early Irish literature was created in a situation of ‘cultural diglossia’ whenboth Latin and Irish were used as literary languages, when both Christian andnative cultural patterns made their impact on literary circles, world-view andsociety.∗ In the book, I also make use of some Hiberno-Latin texts includingSt Patrick’s Confessio, Hisperica Famina, poetry and hagiography. It is importantto observe the same story or phenomenon as viewed from two different perspect-ives, native and Latin. Moreover, it is likely that the new written form (namelythe new Christian and Classical Graeco-Roman logos, as such) facilitated thecreation of a new and structured form of some pre-Christian beliefs and narrat-ives. Whether we talk about ‘secondary paganism’ or newly created simulacrapurported to be based on some lost originals is a different question altogether.

∗ See on ‘cultural diglossia’ in medieval Ireland: Mac Cana 2011, 45–62.

ix

Whereas all core mythologems discussed in this book belong to the early Ir-ish tradition with its deep sense of unity, it is also important to stress their localimportance, the fact that they are always associated with particular places andgeographical locations in Ireland. These local mythologems often reflected inthe collections of place lore (Dindṡenchas) make up an interconnected networkand a treasury of mythology, synthetic history and sacred geography. This net-work reveals the complex and unique character of the early Irish Otherworldwith its specific locations—the síde—initially seats of gods and later fairy hills of-ten associated with prehistoric monuments. Etymologically-speaking the termsíd referred to seat, throne and then to barrows, mounds and natural hills andmountains with otherworldly connotations.

Important landmarks, such as trees, hills, roads, etc., were often employed asmnemonic tools, kinds of centres of gravity of early Irish mythology. Apparentlyeach kind of landmark had its own meaning and significance but all of themtogether formed a network within Ireland’s sacred geography. More importantlocations, such as ‘royal’ provincial centres, or the most prominent síde playedimportant roles both on a provincial and an all-Ireland level.

In narratives devoted to the five trees or five roads of Ireland, we are likelyto be confronted with traces of an indigenous cosmology. And in the storiesinvolving the transformations and the soul transmigrations of two swineherdsor of Fintan mac Bóchra, we can find some distinctive features of the early Irishattitude towards the human soul. Needless to say that all of these accounts areinfluenced by and interconnected with the new Christian, biblical patterns, if notdirectly fitted into Christian worldview or sacred history.

It is significant that the sacred geography of Ireland and her supernaturalcharacters, gods and heroes are interconnected on a transregional, national level.This is in sharp contrast with later folklore, where plots and characters—oftenanonymous—retain only their local significance. Apparently it was a secular,learned elite responsible for this structured national mythology, mythologicaltopography and geography. The difference can also be related to an aristocraticvs. a peasant approach to mythology and storytelling, and it is significant thatthe secular learned elite (poets, ‘historians’ and storytellers) was supported byIrish aristocracy until the end of the Gaelic order. Sometimes the whole Gaelicworld, including Scotland and the Isle of Man, is incorporated into the sphereof Ireland’s sacred geography (as happens with Manannán’s dwelling or CúChulainn’s warrior training in Scotland).

Most chapters of the book contain studies in the sphere of comparative myth-ology. I suggest drawing typological comparisons between some early Irish andSlavic mythologems and poetic formulae. Some concepts discussed in the book,such as sacred kingship, sacred and royal centres, the principles of cosmology,the attitude towards natural phenomena, trees, plants and living creatures, findparallels in different Indo-European cultures. A special section of the book deals

x

with Celto-Slavic comparanda, which, for the most part, is not related to partic-ular linguistic similarities, but depends on some very similar historical situationin the marginal regions of Europe lying outside of the Pax Romana. A chapteron the five directions in early Irish and ancient Indian cosmologies reveals somedeep, more universal constants in archaic cosmologies and may contribute toour understanding of specific features of an Indo-European world-view. Never-theless, logically they belong to several well defined themes within the area ofearly Irish mythology—such as sacred and venerated trees, sacred directions androads, the high-king Conn Cétchathach and wonders associated with his birth asdescribed in Airne Fíngein (‘Fíngen’s Vigil/Night-Watch’), metempsychosis andprimeval inhabitants and creatures in Ireland.

I am grateful to all those who helped and advised me at different stages ofmy research reflected in this book, and to all those who read the draft chaptersand offered their suggestions and criticism. My thanks go to the unknownreader, Séamus MacMathúna, Gregory Toner, John Carey, Iwan Wmffre, MaximFomin, KayMuhr, Micheál ÓMainnín, Maria Koroleva, Nina Zhivlova, BreandánÓCíobháin, Dean Miller, Victoria Vertogradova, to my late teachers and col-leagues Alexander Piatigorsky, Victor Kalygin, Sergey Shkunayev, Evgeniy Go-lovin, and many others. I am grateful to my friends, colleagues, members of myfamily and all those who supported me in my studies and research.

xi

Previously published chapters

‘Hiberno-Rossica: ‘knowledge in the clouds’in Old Irish and Old Russian’, first pub-lished in: Parallels between Celtic and Slavic.Studia Celto-Slavica I (Coleraine, 2006)pp. 185–200.

‘Cú Roí and Svyatogor: a study in chthonic’,first published in: Proceedings of the SecondInternational Colloquium of Societas Celto-Slavica. Studia Celto-Slavica II (Moscow,2009), pp. 64–74.

‘Autochthons and Otherworlds in Celticand Slavic’, first published in: Celts andSlavs in Central and Southeastern Europe.Studia Celto-Slavica III (Zagreb, 2010),pp. 281–302.

‘Significance of pentads in early Irish and In-dian sources: Case of five directions’, firstpublished in: Sacred Topology of Early Ire-land and Ancient India. Religious ParadigmShift. Journal of Indo-European StudiesMonograph Series 57 (Washington D.C.,2010), pp. 113–132.

‘The five primeval trees in Early Irish,Gnostic and Manichaean cosmologies’,first published in: Cosmos 22 (2006),pp. 37–54.

‘The Dindṡenchas of Irarus: the king, thedruid and the probable tree’, first pub-lished in: Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie59 (2012), pp. 5–26.

‘King in exile inAirne Fíngein (‘Fíngen’s Vi-gil’): power and pursuit in early Irish lit-erature’, first published in: Études celtiques36 (2008) pp. 135–148.

‘Conn Cétchathach: the image of ideal king-ship in early medieval Ireland’, first pub-lished in: Studia Celtica Fennica 4 (2007)pp. 15–30.

‘Oral past and written present in ‘The Find-ing of the Táin’’, first published in: Ulidia2. Proceedings of the Second InternationalConference on the Ulster Cycle of Tales(Maynooth, 2009), pp. 18–30.

‘The Migration of the Soul in Early IrishTales’, first published as ‘The migration ofthe soul in De chophur in dá muccida andother early Irish tales’ in: Ulidia 3. Proceed-ings of the Third International Conferenceon the Ulster Cycle of Tales (Berlin, 2013),pp. 137–48.

‘Goidelic hydronyms in Ptolemy’s Geo-graphy: Myth behind the name’, first pub-lished in: Studia Indogermanica Lodziensia7, 2012, pp. 51–58.

‘Swineherd in Celtic lands’, first publishedin: Medium Aevum Quotidianum 59, 2009,pp. 5–15.

‘Fintan mac Bochra: Irish synthetic historyrevisited’, first published in: Studia Celto-Slavica VI (Lodz, 2012), pp. 129–48.

I

Hiberno-Rossica: ‘knowledge in theclouds’ in Old Irish and Old Russian∗

Introduction

The present discussion aims to deal with one rare example of formulaicsimilarities in Old Irish and Old Russian poetic speech. In the past fewyears several studies have appeared devoted to the question of Celto-

Slavic isoglosses or correspondences in theonymics and mythopoetic language(Falileyev 1997–98: 198–203; 1999: 1–3; 2001: 121–24; Kalyguine 1997–98: 367–72). Here we shall deal with two particular poetic fragments from Early Irishand Medieval Russian texts with a special emphasis on the semantics and therules of poetic discourse which are common to both examples. An attempt ismade to tackle the problem of a common Indo-European ancestry for the formuladiscussed, and for cultural realities which this formula reflects.

As C.Watkins suggested, a formula in Indo-European poetic speech is primar-ily determined by semantic factors: a formula is an expression of an idea, of anideological or cultural motive important to some society.The identity of the formand words, inWatkins’ view, is not necessarily important: what enables us to saythat two utterances are variants of the same formula is the identity of their con-tent, and the importance of that content lies in the social context (Watkins’ viewssummarised in Matasović 1996: 52). Of course as regards the kind of semanticformulae that we are going to deal with in this chapter, the following questionmust be raised: how does one prove that cultural patterns are genetically related?I will try to demonstrate some possible solutions to this problem, and in any caseI can only agree with Matasović, that the textual correspondences in poetic for-mulae should not be restricted to the etymologically identical syntagms in IElanguages, but those with correspondent meaning and context should also betaken into account (Matasović 1996: 55).

1. Immacallam in druad Brain ocus inna banḟátho Febuil hóas Loch Ḟebuil

The first text is an Old Irish poem Immacallam in druad Brain ocus inna banḟáthoFebuil hóas Loch Ḟebuil (‘The dialogue of Bran’s druid and Febul’s prophetessabove Loch Febuil’, further IDB). The poem has been collated and edited with

∗ All translations, unless otherwise noted are mine. I am grateful to J. Carey, M. Fomin andS. Mac Mathúna for their help and suggestions concerning this chapter.

2 1. Hiberno-Rossica:

a translation by J. Carney (1976), a new edition and translation by J. Carey hasappeared in 2002 (Carey 2002: 74–75). Carey has interpreted some realities dif-ferently and has also offered a new date for the poem’s composition. Inmy discus-sion I will use both editions as well as my own reading of the manuscripts.¹ TheDialogue consists of eight stanzas, four uttered by Bran’s druid, and four by Fe-bul’s prophetess (banḟáith, both their names are unknown) as they contemplateLoch Febuil (mod. Lough Foyle) which had inundated the ancient kingdom of Fe-bul, Bran’s father. It is remarkable that druí and faith are often interchangeablein early Irish literature: both perform the function of divination. Neverthelessneither the druid nor the prophetess perform any divination in our text.They arepreoccupied with the past and hidden present rather than with the future. IBDis preserved in two manuscripts whose versions of the account are very close:TCD MS. 1363 (formerly H. 4. 22) (H) (16th century), p. 48 cols. a and b and Nat.Lib. of Ireland Gaelic Ms. 7 (N) (16th—early 17th century), cols. 9 and 10. The poembelongs to the group of texts from the lost supposedly eighth centurymanuscriptCín Dromma Snechta, as becomes obvious from the words asin l.c. nicc ‘from thesame book hic’ in H. J. Carney (1976: 181) dated the text on linguistic groundsto the early seventh century at latest. J. Carey (2002: 74–75) on the other handargues that there are no linguistic grounds to date the poem earlier than theeighth century, but he does not altogether exclude a seventh century date forthe text in question. The quatrain which interests us is in deibide metre. Bran’sdruid is a character associated with knowledge, or ‘faculty of cognition’ (fius):at first he calls himself ‘not a man of little knowledge’ (ni ba-se fer fesso bic),until his ‘defeat in battle (?)’ (co maidm form ind imbairic). Then his knowledgeflies to the high clouds, and finally reaches a pure well with the jewels, whilehis body stays in the fortress of Bran. Our interest lies in the second stanza ofthe poem ascribed to Bran’s druid and devoted to the flight of his ‘knowledge’.The following variants of the stanza are given from H (based on K. Meyer’s and J.Carney’s transcript) and from N.² The edition below is based on J. Carney’s andJ. Carey’s with minor variations.

H (p. 42: col. a)Anubimmis idún braín icol isinnuargaim fiadum nenaisc triunu dialuig mofius coard níúl-.

N (col. 3)// argaimh. fiadhúnib nenaissccA nubimáiss indun broin. icóol issindutriuna dialluith mufiss cohairdníula

1 Cf. also Kuno Meyer’s edition (1913a) from H. 4. 22.2 The readings are based on J. Carney transcript and my own reading of the textual im-ages of the MS provided by ISOS project (http://www.isos.dias.ie/english/index.html asaccessed on 16 May 2013).

II

Cú Roí and Svyatogor:a study in chthonic

Introduction

Both Early Irish and Russian epic traditions, so different chronologicallyand semantically, demonstrate a particular example of an extraordinarycharacter showing supernatural and heroic features aswell as the features

of a chthonic monster: it is Cú Roí mac Dáire on the Irish side, and Svyatogoron the Russian side. We have to be careful before arguing that these two mytho-logical characters reflect only one particular archetype of a monstrous chthoniccreature (cf. views expressed by Henderson (1899: 196–97) in Ireland and Putilov(1986: 497) in Russia);¹ on the contrary, one has to consider both heroes as com-plex and independent entities who appear in the two quite distinct mythologiesand epic traditions (Early Irish and Russian). This is especially true in relationto the Russian tradition of byliny (былины) which have been preserved orallyuntil the first records of the seventeenth century.

An authentic term for bylina among Russian performers was стáринá (‘an-cient story, history’, ‘tale of ancient deeds’ an exact equivalent of OIr. senchas)and it reflects the historicity of the genre as well as the fact that it contains folkimagery of the past. Both the Early Irish and Russian mythological traditionsas they have survived in the textual forms (notwithstanding the differencesof their background) bear clear traces of a Christian world-view which makesit even more difficult to establish certain pre-Christian religious or ritualisticpatterns allegedly connected with the characters discussed. Christianity andclassical Graeco-Roman literature to a certain extent have given well-shapedliterary forms to the pre-existing plots and stories, much more alternating andinterchanging in their most archaic forms. It may be argued on the basis of thetwo European traditions in question that Christian and pagan elements becamecombined in a rather organic synthesis, where pre-Christian features becameintrinsic in a new Christian world-view (Nikitina 1991: 141). Nevertheless, ar-chetypal typological similarities between these two heroes make them looklike distorted reflections of an ancient chthonic creature/titan, well known inthe basic myth. For example, the Indian myth of the heroic god (deva) Indrawho fights the arch-titan (asura) (Namuci or Vṛtrá) was one of the sources forCoomaraswamy’s interpretation of ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, a medi-

1 Henderson compares Cú Roí to Grendel but does not discuss his chthonic nature indetails, see also Rhys 1892: 474–75.

16 2. Cú Roí and Svyatogor:

eval romance based on the ‘beheading game’ reflected in the early Irish taleFled Bricrenn (Coomaraswamy 1944: 105–106).² It was a common practice inIndo-European studies to analyse comparative Indian and Celtic mythologemsor verbal formulae, here we are going to discuss similar concepts from Early Irishand Slavic traditions. This approach seems to be reasonable both on a historicaland on a philological level as it allows a researcher to look at both our heroes in awider context of Indo-European mythology—a particular motif or a mythologemcan show what has been lost or forgotten in a motif or a mythologem fromanother Indo-European tradition.The aim of the present chapter is to trace thesetypological similarities which sometimes will lead us to different characters andplots both in Early Irish and in Russian material.

1. Cú Roí: a chthonic monster or the king of the world?

Several features of Cú Roí, reflected in Early Irish literature, make him a ratherunique or even transcendent character. His nameCú Roí (initially the second partis disyllabic Roï ) presumably means ‘a hound of the field/battlefield’ which linkshim with other hound-like warriors of Irish epic literature such as Cú Chulainn(‘Culann’s hound’), Cú Chongelt (‘the hound of the pastures’), Cú Chaille (‘thehound of the wood’) etc.³ Actually he is the Cú of second-most importance inthe Early Irish epos after Cú Chulainn. OIr. róe ‘a level piece of ground, a plain’,hence ‘a battlefield’ (DIL s.v. 2 róe, cf. Mod. Ir. ré ‘stretch of ground, level ground(on the slope of the mountain, in Munster Irish)’), so the meaning of the secondpart of our hero’s name might have been inclusive of both spatial and militaryproperties. The second element implies a wide range of activities and journeysin open space and in the battlefield made by Cú Roí. It makes him a characterclosely similar to Russian Svyatogor whom we meet quite often ‘in a clear field’(vo chistom, vo poli) (Putilov 1986: 52). Polye ‘field, plain, steppe’ is the mostsuitable place for the heroes of Russian byliny to meet each other, to exchangeheroic feats, to fight their enemies and to fight each other. The topos of the ‘field’is common both for Russian and for Irish heroic epics. At the same time ‘field’does not constitute a proper locus for Cú Roí and Svyatogor. It is merely an outerspace for their adventures.

The meaning of róe in Cú Roí’s name discussed before was accepted by Rhys(1904: 286), Meyer (1901a, 41 n. 4), d’Arbois de Jubainville (1899: 59), and Stokes& Bezzenberger (1894: 235). Cf. fer roe ‘champion, combatant’ (O’Dav. 376). How-ever T.F. O’Rahilly has argued against this view on the basis of the earlierform Cú Rauï, taking OIr. gen. of róe ‘plain’ to be roё (disyllabic). According toO’Rahilly, gen. Rauï < Ravios ‘roarer?’ (a theonym?) (O’Rahilly 1946: 5–6), that

2 On the influence of Fled Bricrenn on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, see (Jacobs 2000:54).

3 All these compounds are dated no earlier than the seventh century thus going back tothe period of Christiansation and social changes in Ireland.

a Study in Chthonic 17

is ‘the Hound of the Roarer-god?’. Contrary to O’Rahilly, de Bernardo-Stempel(2005: 95) argues that Ravios as a river name is non-Celtic (Old European). Itshould be stressed here that the name Cú Roí, as well as Svyatogor, just like anykeyword in mythopoetic contexts, has probably undergone multiple etymolo-gisations, each of them corresponding to certain motifs connected with thesemythological characters (Toporov 1983: 94).

Cú Roí appears in an Old Irish tale Mesca Ulad (‘The Intoxication of theUlaid’) at the walls of Temair Lúachra, the southern royal centre, where hesettles a dispute between his two druids. It is rather important that in this tale,as in several other sources, Cú Roí is portrayed as a king of Munster with hisresidence in Temair Lúachra (Watson 1983: 20.450) associated by some scholarswith Ptolemy’s Ίουερνίς (Ίερνίς) a centre (polis) of Ίούερνοι (Darcy & Flynn2008: 63; Stückelberger & Graßhoff 2006: 146 § 10). More specifically, he isportrayed as the king of the Clanna Dedad, a branch of the southern Érainn(Ptolemy’s Ίούερνοι (Ίούβερνοι)) (Henry 1995: 179; Stückelberger&Graßhoff2006: 144 § 7). As the Rees brothers pointed out, Cú Roí ‘belongs to Ireland, andyet he is not of it’ just as the province of Munster itself (both archaeologicallyand historically) (Rees & Rees 1961: 138). The southern fifth of Ireland (and WestMunster particularly) has its unique features reflected both in the literature andin the historical development of this region.⁴ Cú Roí is sometimes viewed asbeing a central character in a lost Munster cycle of tales while there are stilla number of tales and poems on Cú Roí that luckily survived (MacKillop 1998:107).

As opposed to Cú Roí’s local southern associations the author of Mesca Uladalso calls Cú Roí rí in domain ‘the king of the world’ (Watson 1983: 20. 452),and in this capacity he has to stay outside the inhabited world and remainhidden in his secret centre (Guénon 1958: 68–69): this is where we find himin most of the early Irish sources. Cú Roí is also known as the king of the worldin the later sources: one Middle Irish poem treats him as a king to whom theworld submitted (rí ar domun rodēt) (Meyer 1901: 38).⁵ It seems plausible to traceorigins of this specific OIr. formula to earlier continental Celtic titles found inGaulish personal names, as in Gaul. Dumnor(e)ix ‘Roi-du-Monde-d’en-bas’ (‘Roi-des-Ténèbres’) <*dubno-rig-s (Delamarre 2003: 151). The relevant inscriptionaccompanied by a depiction of a warrior (king?) handling a severed human headis found on the first-century BC Gaulish coin: it reads DUBNOREIX (Maier 2000:

4 I shall not discuss in detail this special character of Munster in the early Irish literature asan abode of áes síde (Banba on Slíab Mis, Bodb and Nár Túathcháech in Síd Boidb, Áinein Cnoc Áine) and other supernatural heroes (Mug Ruith etc.). It would be enough tosay that West Munster in the early Irish traditional mind possesses certain supernaturalqualities and is often set apart from the rest of Ireland.

5 Even in the Middle Welsh adaptation Marwnat Corroi m. Dayry the author says that‘tidings (of Corroi) are made known to me in truth throughout the world’ (chwedleu a’mgwydir o wir hyd lawr) (Haycock 2007: 468).

18 2. Cú Roí and Svyatogor:

12–13). This image is even more remarkable if we recall a beheading game in FledBricrenn. As for the OIr. concept of the world, we have OIr. domun <*dubno-‘dark/low’ (Kalygin 2002: 96, 97) (Gaul. dubnos, dumnos ‘le monde d’en bas’),OIr. domun also has the meaning ‘earth’ in the physical sense (DIL s.v. domun),which implies that the word had an earlier significance. Kalygin’s argument thatCú Roí functions as ‘the king of the (lower) world’ may be correct (Kalygin 2006:65).

Both our heroes (Cú Roí and Svyatogor) owe much to the element of earth:Cú Roí as rí in domain ‘the king of the (lower) world’ and Svyatogor, dyingoverwhelmed by the earth power. Although Svyatogor is never called “king” or“prince” in the Russian byliny, he often boasts of having a special power overthe earth: «Как бы я тяги нашел,/Так я бы всю землю поднял!» (‘If I could findsome traction, I would lift up the whole earth’) (Kalugin 1986: 48). The authorof one bylina comments on Svyatogor’s words: “Впредки не похваляйтесь /Всёю землёю владети» (‘Do not boast anymore of possessing the whole earth”)(Hilferding 1949: No 185). Both heroes cannot be sustained by their own land(ultimately by the earth itself) and are found fighting in the outer regions orhiding in their mountainous refuge.

The reason for applying the title of rí in domain lies in Cú Roí’s nature, in thefact that he is seen as the most non-Irish character among the Irish heroes of theUlster cycle. He is the ‘king of the world’ who cannot be sustained by this humanworld. His Eastern journeys to Scythia and to Francia are often mentioned andhis warlike expeditions in the outer (Eastern) world are among his prominentfeatures, shown, for example, in Fled Bricrend (‘Bricriu’s Feast’):

… ocus ní rabi Cú Roí hi fus ar a cind ind aidchi sin, ocus rofitir co ticfaitis,ocus foracaib comarle lasin mnái im réir na curad, co tísad don turus, dian-dechaid sair hi tirib Scithiach, fo bith ní roderg Cu Ruí a claideb i n-Érind,o rogab gaisced co n-deochaid bás, ocus nocho dechaid bíad n-Erend innabeólu, cein rombói ina bethaid, o roptar slána a secht m-bliadna, úair nirothallastar a úaill nach a allud nach a airechas nach a borrfad nách a nertnach a chalmatus i n-Érind (Henderson 1899: 100).

… and that night before their [the Ulaid’s] arrival Cú Roí was not there,but he knew they would come, and he gave advice to his wife regardingthe heroes until he would return from the journey when he has gone tothe east to the Scythian lands, for Cu Roí had not reddened his sword inIreland since he took up arms, until his death, and food of Ireland neverpassed his lips while he was alive, from the age of full seven years, becausetherewas no room in Ireland for his pride, his fame, his rank, his expansion,his strength, and his bravery.

The Eastern world and Scythia are taken here as the furthest lands from Ireland

III

Autochthons and otherworldsin Celtic and Slavic

1. Introduction. Separation of Ireland in Mesca Ulad

When dealing with the Irish Otherworld one encounters the problem of thebeginning of historical consciousness in Ireland. The time immemorialwhen the Túatha Dé were said to have ruled Ireland as described in the

first half of ‘The Wooing of Etaín’ (Tochmarc Étaíne) is perceived as a periodduring which there is no sharp division between this world and the Otherworld,nor between the sons of Míl and the Túatha Dé, the time when gods walkedon earth (Bergin & Best 1938: 142–46).¹ One can even argue that even in thelater periods (according to Irish traditional chronology), as they are reflected inearly Irish tradition, the border-line between this world and the ‘supernatural’existence is transparent and in any relevant early Irish narrative one can hardlytrace a precise moment when a hero enters the ‘Otherworld’. What is remarkableis that one can definitely detect ‘otherworldly’ characters in this environmentsuch as the supernatural beings (áes síde) that are associated with a particularlocus, a síd. The seemingly ‘historical’ question of when the lower Otherworldin Ireland was first separated from the middle world of humans is dealt with in anumber of early Irish tales. Let us focus on a short fragment from an Ulster cycletale ‘The drunkenness of the Ulaid’ (Mesca Ulad). The problem of áes síde andtheir opposition to humans is posed here only in order to determine the conflictin the tale.This question as such is not relevant to the Ulster cycle, though it maybe taken as an important stimulus for many conflicts described in Early Irishliterature. The fragment forms an introduction to a younger version of MescaUlad (MU2) and is taken from the Book of Leinster 261b:

Ō do-rīachtatar Meic Mīled Espāine Hērind tānic a ṅgáes timchell TūathiDé Danann. Cu ru lēiced Hériu ar raind Amairgin Glúnmáir meic Mīled.Ūair is samlaid ro baī side rígfili ⁊ rígbrithem. Cu ru raind Hērinn dar dó ⁊co tuc in leth ro boí sís d’Hērind do Thūaith Dé Danann et in leth aile doMaccaib Mīled Espāine da chorpfhini fadéin.Do-chuatar Tūath Dé Danann i cnoccaib ⁊ sīdbrugib cu ra accallset sída fothalmain dóib. Bar-fhácsat cúicfhiur díb ar comair cacha cóicid i nHērinn ic

1 Nevertheless even according to the first part of this tale the Tuatha Dé are located in theirunderground residences (síde): Síd in Broga, Brí Leith, Cleitech etc. The feature showsstrong association of the old pagan gods with burial mounds and the chthonic sphere inearly Irish literature.

28 3. Autochthons and Otherworlds

mórad chath ⁊ chongal ⁊ áig ⁊ urgaile etir Maccu Míled. Bar-ácsat cūiciurdíb ar chomair cúicid Ulad int shainruth. Anmand in chúicfir sin, Breamac Belgain a Drommannaib Breg, Redgᵃ Rotbélᵇ a Shlemnaib Maige Ítha,Tinnell mac Boclachtnai a Sléib Edlicon, Grici a Cruachán Aigli, GulbanGlass mac Gráci a Beind Gulbain Guirt meic Ungairb. (Watson 1941: 1; LL:261b)

When the sons of Míl of Spain reached Ireland, their wisdom circumven-ted the Túatha Dé Danann. Ireland was left to the division of AmorgenGlúnmár, son of Míl, for he was a kingly poet and a kingly judge. He di-vided Ireland in two and gave the half under the ground to the Túatha DéDanann and the other half to the sons of Míl of Spain to his own kin.The Túatha Dé Danann went into the hills and fairy regions, and they dugthe fairy-mounds (síde) underground. They left behind, for each fifth ofIreland, five of their number to increase battles and conflicts and strife andstruggle among the sons of Míl. They left behind five of their number forthe fifth of Ulaid in particular. The names of those five were Brea son ofBelgan from the ridges of Brega, Redg Rotbél from the plains of Mag Ítha,Tinnell son of Boclachtnae from Slíab Edlicon, Grici from Cruachán Aigli,Gulban Glass son of Gráci from Bend Gulbain Guirt maicc Ungairb.

Leaving aside for the moment the pentadic symbolism of the fragment let usconsider the opening lines of the narrative. The special localisation of the Oth-erworld is associated in this text (as well as in other narratives to be discussed)with the coming of the sons of Míl and the beginning of Goidelic Ireland. It isnot surprising that the very notion of the separation between the world of hu-mans and the Otherworld is closely related to the beginning of history as such.When history begins the sacred (belonging to gods) has to be separated fromthe profane (belonging to mortals). One can argue that Ireland has experiencedseveral ‘beginnings’ of history, and alongside with the coming of Christianityand the Anglo-Norman invasion, the coming of the sons of Míl is one of thosebeginnings of history in medieval Irish historiography.The coming of the sons ofMíl has been interpreted by several scholars as the triumph of men over the eldergods. The latter phenomenon known also in Classical myths introduces not onlyhistory but also mythology as a system governing the relations between menand gods, profane and superhuman. This phenomenon of early Irish mythologywas earlier commented upon by M.-L. Sjoestedt:

The day on which the race of men triumphed over the race of gods marksthe end of the mythical period when the supernatural was undisputedmaster of the earth, and the beginning of a new period in which men and

ᵃRedg] Radg Y ; Ridhgell E. ᵇRotbél] Rodbel YE, Boglacthna E.

in Celtic and Slavic 29

gods inhabit the earth together. From that moment the great problem ofreligion becomes important, the problem of relationship between man andthe gods. The mythology states the circumstances in which the charterregulating this relationship was established once and for all. (Sjoestedt1949: 47)²

It is significant that the victory of the sons of Míl over the Túatha Dé Danannis associated with their wisdom, intelligence (gáes) rather than their militarystrength. The events alluded to in the tale are explored in Lebor Gabála Érenn(‘TheBook of the Conquest of Ireland’) in the section devoted to the coming of thesons of Míl and their victory over the Túatha Dé Danann.Themain driving forceof Ireland’s division in Mesca Ulad is the same Amorgen, who plays the mostactive role at the taking of Ireland by the sons of Míl. It should be rememberedthat the taking of Ireland by the sons of Míl is described as a contest betweenthe druids and the wise men of the Túatha Dé against the druids and filid ofthe sons of Míl. The author of Lebor Gabála refers to such an early authority asCín Dromma Snechta in stating that druids and filid of the sons of Míl destroyedthe magic army conjured by the earth-goddess Ériu: they “sang spells to them,and they saw that they [the warriors] were only sods of the mountain peat”(conrochansat a ndruidh-seom ⁊ a filid dīchetla dōib, conaccater nī batir [acht]fhoid mōn na slēibe) (Macalister 1956: 36).³ When confronting “the wind ofdruids” (gāeth druad) on the sea, the sons of Míl blame their learned men (āesdāna) for their failure, and it is only Amorgen who can confront the magic of theTúatha Dé with his spells (Macalister 1956: 38, 114). Amorgen is also associatedwith divisions and judgments in Lebor Gabála but the divisions and judgmentsconcern in this instance the sons of Míl and the only agreement between themand the Túatha Dé ever mentioned in Lebor Gabála is when the Milesians forma marriage-alliance with the Túatha Dé Danann, giving them half of Ireland inreturn for their wives (Scowcroft 1988: 9). Amorgen tries to judge a disputebetween Éremón and Éber when they defeat the Túatha Dé Danann and hisjudgement finally leads to Ireland’s division into two parts, north and south, thatis, Éremón’s and Éber’s (LL: 1745–50; 1780). Amorgen is a knowledgeable poetand judge, able to divide and govern the existence with his demiurgic functions.His name Amorgen is given to other powerful filid in the Irish literary tradition,it literally could probably mean ‘song-born’ (cf. amar ‘song’, DIL s.v., Kalygin1997: 51, but according to Vendryes “né de la souffrance, fils du chagrin”, LEIAA-65). Knowledge and magical abilities are the dominant factors that helped thesons of Míl to obtain Ireland, thus one should not attribute the second (military)Dumezilian function to them as opposed to the first priestly and sacred functionof the Túatha Dé Danann.

2 This refers also to a treaty between the Dagda and the sons of Míl mentioned in Hull1933: 55–56.

3 Note also earthly/chthonic character of the Túatha Dé magic army.

IV

The significance of pentads inEarly Irish and Indian Sources:

the case of five directions∗

1. Introduction

In the history of comparative literary and mythological studies, the Reesbrothers’ Celtic Heritage proved to be very influential, especially in thefield of comparison between Celtic and Indian traditions. However, their

overview often needs further consideration when it comes to exact referencesfrom early Indic sources: one has to approach their general remarks with a lin-guistic magnifying glass at hand. This is even more relevant when one is con-cerned with their description of the fivefold division of Ireland. In the chapteron the hierarchy of the five provinces (cóicid) of Ireland, the Rees brothers in-serted an epigraph from one of the earliest Indian philosophical texts Taittirīya-upaniṣad, “Whatever exists is fivefold” (F. Max-Müller’s translation), which istaken from the rṣi’s comments on the fivefold division of elements (bhūtā) of thematerial world and of the human body: pānktam vā idam sarvam / pānktenaivapānktam spr notīti, ‘all this is fivefold / and one gains fivefold bymeans of the five-fold’ (TU 1.7).¹ Max-Müller interprets the last line as follows: “By means of the in-ner fivefold set one unites with the external fivefold material world” (Navlakha2000: 26; Rees & Rees 1961: 118). The original rather suggests an interdepend-ence of the macrocosm and the microcosm by means of fivefoldness, which isseen as an intrinsic unity of manifested existence. The same idea is developed inBrhadāranyaka-upaniṣad I.4.17: which comments on the fivefold sacrifice and thefivefold human body, thus uniting microcosm and macrocosm by means of sacri-fice on the mesocosmic level (Ogibenin 1971: 337): sa eṣa pankto yajñah, panktahpasuh, panktah puruṣah, panktam idam sarvam yad idam kiñ ca. tad idam sar-vam āpnoti, ya evam veda, ‘fivefold is this sacrifice, fivefold [is] the sacrificialanimal, fivefold [is] the man, fivefold [is] everything. One who knew it gainseverything’.² It is important that the significance of the number five here is not

∗ I am grateful to Maxim Fomin and Dean Miller for their suggestions and commentsalthough I am solely responsible for the opinions and translations put forward here,including any errors therein.

1 All translations are mine unless otherwise noted.2 There are also references to the fivefold character of time in the early Indian texts. Forinstance, the Vedic sacrificial text of the Śatapatha-Brāhmana speaks of five divisions ofthe year which serve as the foundation of the fivefoldness of the sacrifice: “He makes fivesacrifices, because the sacrifice is commensurate to the year, and there are five seasons

44 4. Significance of Pentads in Early Irish and Indian Sources:

concerned with the idea of four cardinal points plus a centre; on the contrary,“five” has its own importance as a number of unity and universality. Early Irishliterature in its turn does not specify the importance of the number five, but,nevertheless, supplies the readers with numerous examples of critically import-ant pentads on the social, mythological and legal levels, such as: five provincesof Ireland, five royal hostels, five sacred trees, five major roads and five waysof judgement etc. To give an example of the cosmological pentads with closelycorresponding functions, one can mention five sacred trees of Ireland as elab-orately described in the early Irish place-lore (dindṡenchas), and the five treesin Devaloka or Indra’s paradise (Svarga-loka) which play a significant cosmolo-gical role in the purānas (Stokes 1895: 277–79; Mani 1975: 378). The trees, namedMandara, Pārijāta, Santana, Kalpavr kṣa, and Haricandana are first manifested atthe churning of the ocean by gods and demons (only one tree, Kalpavr kṣa, ismentioned among the wonderful things obtained by the churning of the oceanof milk in the Agni Purāṇa). Of these five trees the major role is played by thetree called Pārijāta, which was stolen by Kr ṣna from Indra’s Paradise and hiddenfor a period of time (cf. Eó Mugna being hidden in Airne Fíngein).³ These fivetrees of Svarga-loka are also manifested in the five earthly trees (Viṣṇu PurāṇaI.9, V.30: 38).

In comparison with the triads, the pentads are less known and less studiedby scholars both in Indian and in Irish tradition. The aim of this chapter is toexamine the importance of pentads through the example of the five roads or fivedirections as a phenomenon inherent in both cosmologies.This concept is relatedboth to the cosmology and the sacred geography of these regions and one hasto bear in mind the philosophical, cosmological and mythological significance ofthe concept, notwithstanding the local and historical features distinctive in eachexample.

in the year: thus he gains it (the year) in five (divisions), and because of that/thereforehe makes five sacrifices” (ŚB III 1.4.5 = Eggeling 1885: 21). Furthermore, the mountingof the five directions of space (Skt. digvyāsthāpanam) ritual is concluded by a formulafrom which one can deduce that it also metonymically presents the ascension of the fivedivisions of the year: “And as to why he makes him ascend the directions, - that is aform of the seasons: it is the seasons, the year, that he thereby makes him ascend” (ŚBV 4.1.8 = Eggeling 1885: 91). For further discussion of the digvyāsthāpanam ritual, seethird section of this contribution as well as the articles by Alexandrova (2010: 87–112)and Fomin (2010: 195–239).

3 The description of Eó Mugna (Eó Rossa) in Airne Fíngein:Crann éim … fil fo díchleith ó aimsir na dílenn i n-Érinn ⁊ docuirethar téora frossa toraidtria chéo de, comba lán a m-mag forsa tá fo thrí día dairmes cacha bliadna ; ⁊ in tan dofuitin dercu dédenach de, is ann dotóet bláth na dercon toísigi fair. (Vendryes 1953: 4)The tree indeed … that was hidden in Ireland since the time of the deluge and it puts forththree showers of fruits through the mist, so that the plain upon which it stands will befull of its acorns three times each year. When the last acorn falls from it, the blossom ofits first acorn will fall.

The Case of Five Directions 45

Before starting a discussion of an early Irishmicrotext fromAirne Fíngein ‘Fín-gen’s Vigil’, I have to point out a major difference between the early medievalIrish literature and the Indian literary tradition. In pre-Buddhist and later Hinduliterature we face a polytheistic or henotheistic worldview difficult to compre-hend for modern Europeans, with our monotheistic background. In contrast tothe former, in the early medieval Irish literature we encounter only a few tracesof the former, pre-Christian worldview witnessed by early Christian monks orthe Christianised literati. It is plausible that both the pre-Christian Irish and thepre-Buddhist Indian worldview had many structural and typological similarities,but we always have to bear in mind the synthetic nature of the early Irish lit-erature, with the strong Christian influence. It is the advent of Christianity inIreland that marked the coming together of the two organised intellectual tradi-tions, one being Christian and the other being pagan, each with their own textsand personnel. A significant intellectual exchange took place between these twogroups (Stacey 2005: 239–240). The result of this exchange is found in the richand synthetic vernacular literature produced in early medieval Ireland. Two tra-ditionsmerged strongly in this literature, and I think that they are still discerniblethrough a process of deconstructive analysis that we are going to employ here.

2. Five roads of Ireland

The relevant Old Irish microtext I am going to deal with is found in Airne Fíngein(hereinafter AF ), an early tale devoted mainly to the description of the wondersthat followed the birth of Conn Cétchathach, the king of Tara. These wonders(búada) are divided into several sections, and each of them constitutes an aeti-ological account similar to what we find in the early Irish place-lore (dindṡen-chas). It is plausible to argue that some entries in the dindṡenchas are borrowedfrom AF, or at least that their compilers used similar sources. On the other hand,the synthetic character of AF allows us to consider minor aetiological accountsin the tale as being borrowed at least partially from the traditional pre-writtencorpus of place-lore. According to the AF ’s editor, J. Vendryes, the tale was com-posed sometime in the Old Irish period between the ninth and the tenth cen-turies AD. The core text shows all the features of late Old Irish. AF togetherwith Cath Maighe Léna, Baile Chuinn Chétchathaig and other tales are usuallyperceived as parts of the so-called cycle of Conn Cétchathach. The narrative ofAF that belongs to the kings’ cycle is characterised by a specific perception ofthe origins of royal power and its loss, in the context of one particular myth. Weare told how Fíngen mac Luchta, a local prince (rígdomna) from Munster, andRothníam, a woman from the síd (from Síd Cliach, modern Knockainy, Co. Lim-erick), met on Druim Fíngin in Eastern Munster (a ridge of hills between Fermoyand Dungarvan) on the night of Samain. Then Rothníam related to Fíngen thetales of wonders that manifested themselves on the night of Conn’s birth. Weare told in the metrical dindṡenchas of Druim Fíngin, that Fíngen was promised

46 4. Significance of Pentads in Early Irish and Indian Sources:

the sovereignty of Ireland by Rothníam, which is why he later went into exileafter Rothníam told him about the future high-king Conn and his descendantsand thus betrayed Fíngen as her chosen would-be king (Gwynn 1924: 336–338).Concerning this night, she tells him that she has fifty wonders (búada) to relate,though she mentions only twelve or so in the course of the tale. Manifestationof the five major roads of Ireland constitutes one of those wonders.

The section concerning the five major roads of Ireland is likely to be one ofthe original sources for some of the dindṡenchas versions describing the ‘mani-festation’ of the roads during that night. The roads were among the number ofother gifts or wonders (búada) appearing on the night of Conn’s birth. The mostimportant significance of these roads lies in their role as links between Tara andfive peripheries of the country. In this manner the text grants another privilegeto Tara as the royal centre. The text of Airne Fíngein itself provides us with nu-merous obscure places and characters (whose names were partially modelled onthe place names to suit the aetiological story):

Ocus cid búaid n-aile, a ben? or Fingen.Ní hansa, or in ben. Cóic prímróit hÉrenn ní frítha cosinnocht, ⁊ ní rulatar rígnó carpait: .i. Sligi Midluachra innocht fouair Midluachair mac Damairne, .i.mac ríg Sruba Brain oc torachtain feisi Temrach. Ocus Sligi Cúaland fouairFer Fí mac Éogabail ria meschuirib síde oc toracht feisi Temrach. Ocus SligeAsail fouair Asal Doir Domblais ria n-díbergaib Mide oc techt do Themraig.Ocus Sligi Dhala fouair Sétna Secderg mac Dornbuide ria n-druídib Iarmu-man oc saigid ḟeisi Temrach. Ocus Sligi Mór .i. Escir Riadai ; is sí roinnesÉirinn, fouair Nár mac Óengusa Umaill ria lathaib gaile Irruis Domnand occosnam, comtis hé cétnarístais Temraig. Ocus nís túargabsat na cóic róit sincosinnocht for Éirinn. Is ann ro gab Fingen rann aile béus:

Ce béo i tairisium chianním imgaib toirse rodianním geib format aidche nduibfri feis int slúaig i Temraig

“And what other gift, o woman?” said Fíngen. “Not hard,” said the woman.“The five major roads of Ireland, which were not found until tonight, andneither kings nor chariots have travelled them: i.e. Slige Midlúachra (theRoad of Midlúachair) which Midlúachair son of Damairne, i.e. the son ofthe king of Srúb Brain, found in arriving at the Feast of Tara tonight. AndSlige Chúalann (the Road of Cúalu) which Fer Fí son of Éogabal found inarriving at the Feast of Tara before the bands of household followers fromthe síd. And Slige Assail (the Road of Asal) which Asal Doir Domblaisfound going to Tara before the reavers of Mide. And Slige Dala (the Roadof Dala) which Sétna Secderg son of Dornbuide found before the druids ofÍarmumu as he was seeking the Feast of Tara. And Slige Mór (the Great

V

The five primeval trees in Early Irish,Gnostic, and Manichaean

cosmologies∗

This chapter focuses primarily on the phenomenon of five primeval orsacred trees as reflected in Early Irish literature, with some analysis ofthe corresponding mythologems in the Near Eastern Gnostic and Mani-

chaean cosmologies. The five sacred trees of Ireland (Eó Mugna, Eó Rossa, BileTortan, Bile Dathi, and Bile Uisnig), like its five major roads, five hostels, fiveprovinces, or “five ways of judgement”, belong to the unique cosmology rootedin pre-Christian times, to the cosmology whose integral element was the five-fold division of space.¹ The five sacred trees of Ireland do not appear in laterIrish folklore; they belonged to the learned literary tradition, and with the col-lapse of independent rulers and traditional poetic schools the memory of thesecosmological phenomena was lost.

Early Irish and other Celtic traditions show great respect towards sacredtrees and groves (OIr. fidnemed, daire, Gaul. nemeton) and isolated huge trees(OIr. bile, eó) as remnants of the primordial forest left on purpose after clearing.Woods and trees served liminal functions as a locus of priests and demons, asarchaic remnants of the past. On the other hand their liminal sacredness andambiguity bestowed a new Christian status on them as many of these groves and

∗ I am grateful to Emily Lyle, Iwan Wmffre, and John Carey for their suggestions andcomments although I am solely responsible for the opinions and translations put forwardhere, including any errors therein.

1 The fivefold division of Ireland and the corresponding hierarchy of the fifths have beendiscussed by the Rees brothers (1961: 118–39), P. Mac Cana (2011: 251–61) and J. Mallory(2013: 293–96). In the chapter on “provinces” the Rees brothers refer to an episode inSuidigud Tellaig Temra concerning the planting of the five primeval trees of Ireland.Theyare not sure about the exact location of these five trees and conclude that “there can beno doubt that the underlying idea is that the trees symbolise the four quarters aroundthe centre” (Rees & Rees 1961: 120). On the contrary, the locations of all these trees arespecified in the tradition and most of the trees are said to have grown in Leinster andin modern Co. Meath (with the single exception of Bile Uisnig which is located in thecentre of Ireland on the hill of Uisnech, modern Co. Westmeath). See my discussion ofthe historical and geographical implications of the five trees in Ireland and an overviewof the fivefold division of Ireland with regard to other sacred pentads (Bondarenko2003: 193–358). Cf. also five yew-trees in a 12th–13th c. poem for Cathal CroibhdheargÓConchubhair explained as five provinces in the same poem (ÓCuív 1983: 162 § 16: 165§ 33).

58 5. The Five Primeval Trees in Early Irish,

trees became new “points of attraction” in early Irish monasticism. A.T. Lucas inhis well-known article gives a detailed survey of the sacred trees of Ireland onthe basis of early Irish and, especially, later folklore sources (Lucas 1963: 16–54). He also touches upon the phenomenon of the five trees of Ireland. Lucassubdivides the sacred trees of Ireland into several categories: 1) sacred trees assuch, without any further associations (here he places the five trees), 2) treeson royal consecration sites, 3) trees associated with ecclesiastical foundations, 4)trees associated with saints, 5) trees associated with sacred wells. Lucas fails tonote that according to various sources the five trees did have all the other fourrelevant associations.

In a legal context there is a distinction in Early Ireland between trees whichare classed as nemed “sacred, privileged” (fidnemed, sometimes growing on theland of a nemed-person) and ordinary trees (fid comaithchesa) (Kelly 1998: 387).Nevertheless this distinction is never applied to the five trees in the literatureand refers rather to the legal status of a particular tree than to its “sacred” or“profane” nature. Another legal term synonymous with fidnemed is deḟid ‘sacredtree’ which is usually analysed as a compound of día ‘god’ and fid ‘tree’ (DILs.v.; Charles-Edwards & Kelly 1983: 109). The concept of deḟid is likely to goback to the pre-Christian perception when the sacred tree was venerated as god.It corresponds to one of the epithets of the sacred yew Eó Rossa in a seventh-century alliterative poem where the tree is called día dronbalc ‘firm strong god’(Stokes 1895: 277–279).

Alden Watson’s article “The king, the poet, and the sacred tree” is the onlymodern piece of research devoted exclusively to the phenomenon of the fivesacred trees of Ireland (Watson 1981: 165–80). Watson examines in great detailthe problem of interconnections and relations between a king, a fili, and a sacredtree. He compares the stories of the trees’ fall and sees them as a description ofsimilar rituals: in the story of Eó Rossa’s fall the saints, and in the story of EóMugna’s fall the filid perform the same function. Watson compares St Laisrén(Molaisse), who overthrows Eó Rossa by fasting and praying, to Ninníne Éces, thepoet who overthrows Eó Mugna. Watson sees Ninníne as a winner in a strangepoetic competition, just as St Laisrén is the only person among the saints whocould fell the tree.

The five sacred trees of Ireland illustrate this attitude of reverence to the treein early Irish tradition, and the narratives of theirmanifestation contain elementsof a cosmogonic myth. These narratives connect the trees and their coming intoexistence with two specific mythological characters—Tréfhuilngid Tre-eochairand Fintan mac Bóchra.

The story of the planting of the five trees by Fintan and of Ireland’s divisioninto five parts connected with the divine figure of Tréfhuilngid Tre-eochair isfound in theMiddle Irish (10th–11th century) tale “The Settling of the Possessionsof Tara” (Suidigud Tellaig Temra, further STT ) (Best 1910: 121–72).This textmakesFintan one of its major characters and the whole plot is centred on him. The tale

Gnostic, and Manichaean Cosmologies 59

is devoted to the fivefold division of Ireland and the definition of each fifth’sfunctions. The antediluvian survivor Fintan and a giant of divine nature namedTréfhuilngid Tre-eochair relate the history of Ireland to the assembled Irishmenand establish the island’s coordinates, such as the “stone of division” in Uisnechand the five primeval trees. Both Tréfhuilngid and Fintan function as creators ofIrish landscape and spatial division in the plot of the tale.

The framework of the tale is set in the reign of Diarmait mac Cerbaill, theking of Tara (545–565). He held the feast of Tara² and all the nobles of Irelandwhom he had summoned refused to come to the feast unless “the settling of thepossessions of Tara was determined”. It is necessary to note that the word tellach(“possessions”) in the tale’s title might refer to the archaic formal procedureby which a claimant to land in virtue of hereditary right “entered” upon theland (Charles-Edwards 1993: 259), especially given that tellach was sometimestaken as the model of an inauguration rite (Charles-Edwards 2000: 475). Theprocedure is remarkable in its earliest form in that it consists solely of ritualactions. Charles-Edwards suggests that the king of Munster in the “Story ofthe Finding of Cashel” may have inaugurated his reign in Cashel, his “seat ofkingship”, by a form of tellach, the ritual by which an heir entered and tookpossession of his inheritance. The same ritual may underlie “The Settling of thePossessions of Tara”. This association is even more possible as the action takesplace at the feast of Tara (feis Temro), during the event which is assumed to be anancient rite of ίερòς γάμος (“sacred marriage”) between the king and the goddess(symbolised by the stone, Lía Fáil) (Ó Broin 1990: 396). In the tale, the noblesrequired from Diarmait a lawful procedure for claiming the land. Messengerswere consequently sent to the most venerable elders in Ireland. All of them oneby one failed to conduct the settling and the oldest man in Ireland—Fintan—had to tackle the problem. The most intriguing fact in this preamble is thatDiarmait mac Cerbaill was the last among the kings of Tara to celebrate thepagan feis Temro. According to the Annals of Ulster the last feast of Tara duringDiarmait’s reign was held in 558 or 560. This historical fact does not invest theevent described in STT with any historicity but the historical background ofDiarmait’s reign had obviously influenced the image of a society deprived ofhistorical consciousness as shown in the tale.

The method of the “restoration” of historical knowledge by revelation can beeasily demonstrated in the legends of “finding” such as the dindṡenchas (place-lore) found by Amorgen the fili or the Táin (“The Cattle-Raid of Cuailnge”) found

2 The Feast of Tara (feis Temro) was celebrated by the kings from the Uí Néil dynasty inorder to mark their successful reign in the fifth century (and perhaps earlier) accordingto the annals (Byrne 1987: 80). Diarmait mac Cerbaill celebrated the last Feast of Tarain 558 (560?). According to early Irish tales it coincided with the festival of Samain andwas regarded as protection against the supernatural powers of Samain. It seems, that thefeast of Tara was celebrated in pre-Christian Ireland in the climax of the king’s reign andsymbolised the king’s union with the sacred royal power of Tara.

VI

The alliterative poem Eó Rossafrom the Dindṡenchas

There are a number of stories from theDindṡenchas describing the five sac-red trees of Ireland which can be found in the Book of Leinster (hereafterLL) and in other manuscripts. Prose versions of the Dindṡenchas of the

trees were published by W. Stokes and later metrical versions were published byE. Gwynn (Stokes 1895: 277–79: no. 160; Met. Dinds. III 144–148). An alliterativepoem on Eó Rossa, one of the five trees of Ireland, is found in two manuscripts—Book of Leinster (LL 199b61–200a), and in the Yellow Book of Lecan (YBL: 330b),—and was published by Stokes as an insertion into the prose version, but did notfind its way into Gwynn’s collection of the Metrical Dindṡenchas. Gwynn nor-mally neglected obscure alliterative poems in his collection. The poem Eó Rossawas also published in the diplomatic edition of LL by Best and O’Brien (1965:943), and was edited with a Modern Irish translation by P.L. Henry (1978: 145).

The first part of the name of the tree, OIr. eó, goes back to IE *h1eiwos whichgives words for ‘yew’ or ‘willow’ in different IE languages (e.g. Hittite eyan‘sacred ever-green tree’ which served as a religious symbol (Ivanov 1977: 314;Hoffner 1998: 110), whereas in Old and Middle Irish eó means either ‘large(sacred) tree’ or ‘yew’ (Mallory & Adams 2008: 160; DIL s.v. 3 eó; Williams1989: 454). In the ‘Martyrology of Óengus’ the cross of Jesus Christ is called eó:éo ainglech | crann croiche in Choimded (Fél. Mar. 10). Eó Rossa is specificallyreferred to as ‘yew’ in the Dindṡenchas—Eō Rosa, ibar é ‘Eó Rossa is a yew’. Thisphrase implies that eó in Eó Rossa means ‘large (sacred) tree’ rather than ‘yew-tree’. A reader may note that Eó Mugna in the Dindṡenchas and in other prosenarratives is known as an oak tree despite of the eó-element in its name.

Eó Rossa is traditionally located near Old Leighlin, Co. Carlow (OIr.Lethglenn), an earlymonastic settlement and later an episcopal see in south-westLeinster in the territory of Uí Dróna, the branch of Uí Cennselaig. This localisa-tion is implied by a later story of the fall of Eó Rossa which survived in the Latinlife of the early seventh century StMolaise (Laisrén) of Lethglenn (Henschenius& Papebrochius 1675: II: 544–547). The same localisation is also supported by aMid. Ir. textGeinemainMolling (‘The Birth ofMolling’), where the fall of Eó Rossais again associated with StMolaise (Stokes 1906a: 281).

In his edition of Eó Rossa, Stokes made a remark that ‘a string of kennings’of which the alliterative poem is composed ‘once perhaps had some meaningnow not easily discoverable’ (Stokes 1895: 279). This is the task of the presentchapter—to rediscover some of those lost meanings.

70 6. The alliterative poem Eó Rossa

In my edition I have used the text as found in LL: I made use of its digitaledition (www.isos.dias.ie as accessed on 7/08/2013) as well as the diplomaticedition.When preparingmy translation of the poem I also consulted both Stokes’and Henry’s editions and translations in dubious cases. In footnotes I suppliedsome significant variant readings from YBL.

Eó Rossa ⁊ Eó Mugna ⁊ Bili Dathi⁊ Craeb Uisnig ⁊ Bili Tortan, cōiccrand sin. Eō Rosa, ibar é. Sair-tuaith co Druim Bairr dorochairut Druim Suīthe cecinit.

Those five trees—Eó Rossa, Eó Mugna, BileDathi, Craeb Uisnig, Bili Tortan. Eó Rossa,that was a yew. Northeast as far as DruimBairr (‘Ridge of the Top of the Tree’) it fell asDruim Suíthe (‘Summit of Knowledge’) sang:

1 Eō Rosa. Eó Rosa,roth ruirech¹ a king’s circle,recht² flatha. a ruler’s right,fūaim tuinni. a wave’s noise,

5 dech dúilib. best of creatures,dīriuch³ dronchrand. a straight firm tree,dīa dronbalc. firm-stout God (?),dor nime. door of heaven,nert n-aicde. strength of a building/ of made works (?),

10 fó foirne⁴. the good of the band,fer ferbglan. a man pure of word,gart lánmār. full and great generosity,trēn Trīnōit. the Trinity’s strong man,dam toimsi. a measure’s ox,

15 maith máthar. a mother’s good,mac Maire. Mary’s Son,muir mothach a sea abounding in produce,mīad maisse. beauty’s honour,mál menman. a mind’s lord,

20 mind n-angel. diadem (halidom?) of angels,nūall betha. loud noise of the world,blad Banba. Banba’s fame,brīg búada. power of victory/gift,breth bunaid. judgment of origin,

25 bráth brethach. judgment-giving Doomsday,brosna sūad. bundle of sages/of a sage,

1 ruirtheach YBL: — ‘running swiftly?’ (see DIL s.v.).2 res YBL: — ‘vision’.3 direach YBL.4 for oirne YBL.

from the Dindṡenchas 71

Saeriu crannaib. noblest of the trees,clū Gáliōn. glory of the Gáileóin,cāemiu dossaib. fairest of bushy trees,

30 dín bethra. water’s (?) protection,bríg bethad. power of life,bricht n-eōlais. spell of knowledge,Eō Rosa. Eó Rosa.

The alliterative poem ascribed to Druim Suíthe is incorporated into the Dindṡen-chas devoted to the five trees of Ireland. It looks like a litany with a numberof kennings or rather epithets describing the famous yew tree Eó Rossa. Theseepithets are all connected with binding alliteration, with internal assonance andrhyme. Though the fili’s name Druim Suíthe (‘Summit / ridge of Knowledge’) isnot a part of the poem, its structure is the same as that of the epithets employedin association with the tree. His name is not known from other early Irish textsand seems to have an allegorical meaning. Suíthe is the term for the knowledge ofsuí ‘sage’ (sometimes in a Christian meaning, ‘a professional in Latin learning’)< *su-wids (cf. Skr. suvidyā ‘good knowledge’) open to being learned or graspedfrom teachers as opposed to more occult fius which sometimes stood hidden,knowledge perceived only after its revelation (see chapter 12 of this book; LEIAS-199; Breatnach 1981: 60). Very close is the term druimne suíthe ‘summit ofknowledge, of learning’ (DIL, s.v. druimne 412.77), which refers to the knowledgeand art of the filid acquired only after many years of learning. Druimne suíthedenotes certain metres forming part of the last (twelfth) year of a fili’s learn-ing: druimní suithe annso ⁊ atat da ernail furre ‘summit of knowledge then, andthere are two kinds of it’ (IT III 96 § 150). See also in the Annals: Cuchuimne |rolēgh suithe co druimne ‘Cuchuimne read knowledge up to the ridge’ (AU 746).Apparently the poet’s name here must be associated with the metres and poeticknowledge. Possibly it was merely invented based on this terminology. Anotherpossible explanation is that druim suíthe marked a type of composition, indicatedat the head of the poem, and was later reinterpreted as the poet’s name.

There are similar terms roth soithe ‘circle of knowledge’, roth soadh ‘circle ofsages (?)’, also applied to a type of metre (IT III 36 § 18). This echoes the firstepithet in the poem roth ruirech ‘a king’s circle’. The imagery of ‘wheel’ or‘circle’ is well known in early Irish literature. One of God’s epithets in theMiddleIrish poetic composition on Biblical themes Saltair na Rann (‘The Psalter of theVerses’) is connected with the circle or sphere: ardruiri ind roith, rigda ail, | garg-ruide fri croich coem-nāir ‘the High King of the circle/sphere (?), royal rock,rough-powerful (?) towards the fair and noble Cross’ (SR: 1077–78). DIL suggestsalternatively a connection with the circular universe or with the circular panelat the juncture of the cross-arms, on which the Crucifixion was often depictedon Irish high-crosses (as implied in SR: 1078). In another religious poem Loch

72 6. The alliterative poem Eó Rossa

Febail Coluim Cille, ascribed to Báithín mac Cúanach, God’s epithet is associatedwith circles or wheels: gu Rīg na roth ‘the King of the circles/wheels’ (Meyer1910: 304: § 17). In the latter text one cannot take roth as referring to the world orthe universe. Undoubtedly, here we may also encounter traces of the generalsymbolism of the circle or the wheel widespread in the Celtic world beforeChristianity.⁵ The tree’s bole and its circular top might also have been referredto in this line. In our poem it seems likely that ruiri (g.s. ruirech) here refersto the Christian God rather than any earthly ruler. Ruiri indeed is attested inearly Irish texts as a term describing Deity (DIL s.v. ruiri: ruri nime, Thes. II 300.4;snáidsiunn ruri, Thes. II 302.27 (Colman’s Hymn), etc.). Alternatively YBL readsroth ruirtheach ‘a swift running (?) circle/wheel’ which also also makes sense butis likely to be a misinterpretion of the earlier and more obscure epithet.

A. Watson in his article on the five sacred trees of Ireland points out that anumber of epithets from our alliterative poem refer to the royal power; neverthe-less he does notice overtly Christian imagery in the poem. He says that “such dir-ect kingly references are: ‘a king’s wheel’, ‘a prince’s right’ and the two Christianallusions to Christ as King: ‘the Trinity’s mighty one’ and ‘Mary’s Son’” (Watson1981: 171). As we tried to show, roth ruirech ‘a king’s circle’ does not seem to berelated to an earthly ruler, but in all likelihood refers to the Heavenly Ruler andHis order of things. Another ‘kingly’ epithet in the poem is recht flatha ‘a ruler’sright’. This may refer to a king as there was an intimate connection between thesacred tree of the túath and the king. On the other hand this may also refer toGod as a ruler (flaith also can mean Deity).

Another significant and ambiguous epithet in the poem is día dronbalc ‘(a?)firm-stout god/God (?)’. Two compounds dronchrand and dronbalc are tied byrhyme and alliteration. There is also an important semantic background whena tree and matters of faith, the Christian faith in our scenario, are associatedwith such qualities as ‘firm’, ‘hard’ and ‘healthy’, IE *der-u-, *dr-eu- (Benveniste1973: 86–90). Compare in Dagda dron in Cináed úa Hartacáin’s (✝ 987) Poem onBruig na Bóinne (Gwynn 1914: 220.29, cf. 226.18), or Dia dron (SR: 4049, cf. 2409,7825). Can this kenning refer to some pre-Christian Celtic association of a sacredtree with a particular tutelary divinity? Or does it refer to the Christian Godwhose presence is evident in other epithets from the poem? As it stands in astring of alliterative epithets beginning with ‘d’ it should be associated with theprevious lines dech dúilib, dīriuch dronchrand. It strikes me that dech dúilib ‘bestof creatures, elements (?)’ is hardly an appropriate epithet for the Christian God,unless applied to ‘Jesus, the man’, and seems more appropriate for a great tree.If one looks for traces of the older belief here one can compare día dronbalc witha term for a sacred tree or a sacred wood deḟid, a compound of día ‘god’ and fid‘tree, wood’ (DIL s.v. deḟid, Bechbretha 109). A kenning with the word día in early

5 See also archaic rituals among Slavic and Germanic peoples involving a tree-post with asolar wheel above it (Ivanov & Toporov 1965: 135, 230; 1974: 22).

VII

The Dindṡenchas of Irarus: the king,the druid and the probable tree∗

Tomany readers familiar with modern Anglo-Irish literature of the Gaelicrevival, the romantic image of Óengus Mac ind Óc (anglicised Angus Og)with four birds flying above his shoulders, and an obscure reference to

these birds as his transformed kisses, might be known from an adaptation byLady Augusta Gregory in Gods and fighting men (first edition 1904), where shewrites in the chapter about her ‘god of love’:

The birds, now, that used to be with Angus were four of his kisses thatturned into birds and that used to be coming about the young men ofIreland, and crying after them. “Come, come,” two of them would say, and“I go, I go,” the other two would say, and it was hard to get free of them.But as to Angus, evenwhen hewas in his young youth, he used to be calledthe Frightener, or the Disturber.¹

Lady Gregory acknowledges her authorities at the end of the book and quotesStokes’s editions in Revue celtique as one of them.² There is thus no doubt that‘The prose tales in the Rennes Dindṡenchas’ was the inspiration for the quotationabove (cf. Stokes 1895: 68–9). This image was borrowed later by W.B. Yeatsand has entered modern and contemporary popular lore. A popular website onCeltic myths even claims that ‘the xxxx’s symbolising kisses at the end of lovers’letters come from’ Óengus’s four birds.³ What is the historical background of thisepisode, where does it come from, and what realities of early Christian Ireland

∗ A variant of this chapter was given at the Tionól at the Dublin Institute of AdvancedStudies in November 2010. I would like to thank all those present there who commentedor made suggestions on the subject matter of this chapter. My thanks also go to Pro-fessor Gregory Toner, Dr John Carey and Dr Mícheál ÓMainnín for their thoughts andcomments on the reading of the Early Irish text in question, to Dr Iwan Wmffre for hisconsultation on a possible Welsh cognate, and to Dr Kay Muhr and Ms Maria Korolevafor suggesting a number of different interpretations related to ornithological imageryand symbolism. I am grateful to editors of ZcP (59: 2012) for their useful remarks andcriticism which helped me to clarify and correct many points.

1 Lady Gregory 1904: 82.2 Lady Gregory 1904: 468.3 http://celticmythpodshow.com/blog/celtic-love-gods-and-goddesses/ as accessed on 19June 2012.

78 7. The Dindṡenchas of Irarus:

lie behind it? These are the questions that I would like to explore in this chapter,where not only birds but also trees play an important role.

Here I also intend to develop further earlier attempts to build up a com-plex picture of the early medieval Irish perception of sacred trees, combiningboth strong and vivid pre-Christian elements as well as literary and learned ele-ments borrowed substantially from Classical, biblical, apocryphal and exeget-ical sources.⁴ Moreover, in early Ireland where trees and forests were alwaysprominent features of the landscape, ‘the continuous fundamental interactionbetween trees and men’ (especially learned men) ‘is often given recognitionand acknowledgement in man’s … religious rites’⁵ and attitudes, the rites andattitudes that are reflected in extant myths. Here we are going to look at theprose Dindṡenchas of Irarus with some occasional use of the metrical version.The prose Dindṡenchas of Irarus was edited by Stokes in his collection of theprose tales from the Rennes manuscript.⁶ Stokes used the Rennes MS (hereafterR), fo. 123ra44–123rb16, with some variant readings from LL 166a. Two other MSScontaining the proseDindṡenchas of Irarus (Book of Lecan, fol. 518a, hereafter Lec.,and TCD 1322, fol. 15b, hereafter H ) more or less closely follow R. The prose ver-sion in LLwith a single quatrain attachedwas published in the diplomatic editionby Best and O’Brien.⁷ An English summary of this prose version was publishedby Atkinson in his introduction to the facsimile edition of LL.⁸ The metrical ver-sion of the Dindṡenchas of Irarus is contained in several manuscripts, as well asin a relevant fragment in the poem by Gilla na Naem ÓDuind, and was edited byGwynn.⁹ Our investigation into the two versions of the proseDindṡenchas (R andLL) of Irarus will keep in mind the complex relations between MSS and versionsas discussed by Gwynn and ÓConcheanainn.¹⁰ Below I supply my semidiplo-matic edition of two variants of our Dindṡenchas from R and LL together withvariant readings from Lec andH andmy translations, which are in parts tentative.I supply macrons where length marks are missing in the MSS, and I also supplyword-division and capitalisation. I have made use of Stokes’s translation of theR version, but mine differs from it in many instances.

The short text of the prose Dindṡenchas is devoted to a location called Irarus(Lec. Iraros, H [H]irorus, Hererus) which may be related to OIr. irar ‘eagle’, ifperhaps cognate with the Welsh township name Eryrys, earlier Eryres, parishLlandrillo-yn-Iâl, Denbighshire.¹¹ Stokes identified it as the modern townland

4 See Lucas 1963; Watson 1981; Bondarenko 2003; see also ch. V of this book.5 Neeson 1991: 18.6 Stokes 1895: 68–9.7 Best & O’Brien 1957: 740–1, lines 22111–22131.8 Atkinson 1880: 42.9 Met. Dinds. IV, 210–7; Gwynn 1926–28: 79, § 34.

10 Met. Dinds. V, 56; ÓConcheanainn 1981–82: 88–9.11 The Welsh place name has got a fairly certain etymology eryr ‘eagle’ + collect. -es, see

Pierce & Roberts 1999: 92.

the king, the druid and the probable tree 79

Ories (Oris) in the barony of Clonlonan, Co. Westmeath,¹² which is referred toby O’Donovan in his note on Áth Féine in FM under 1160 (I, 1139). Gwynn, onthe other hand, reminds us that according to the annals the place was not farfrom Áth Féine, which he locates near modern Mullingar.¹³ Neither Stokes norGwynn mention a reference to Irarus in the Fragmentary annals of Ireland under859, when Cerball son of Dúnlang together with the son of the king of Norwaywas plundering the territory there of Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid (✝ 862)in Mide.¹⁴ Another battle at Irarus (cath Iroriss) fought by the later king MáelSechnaill mac Domnaill (✝ 1022) is mentioned in Baile in Scáil.¹⁵ Irarus seems tobe associated with the territory of the kings of Tara and Mide.

Before aiming at translating and analysing our short mythological text, wehave to stress that all early Irish mythological verbal texts¹⁶ in their extant formare given to us as a kind of a “broken conglomeration” (a term used for Indianmyths by Margarita Albedil),¹⁷ and it is clear that we do not have the wholepicture and hardly ever are able to obtain one. As Sergey Shkunayev frequentlystressed, we have only texts/elements of the periphery, and we will never be ableto touch the core of the ancient Irish sacred or religious tradition.¹⁸ Moreover inthe mythological texts of Irish provenance, just as in any mythological texts,we do not find any causation as we do in our everyday life, or in specimens ofmodern literature depicting everyday life. Instead they are governed by mytho-logical or magical causation, and different parts of these texts tend simply to addto or duplicate each other. In myth one finds intuitivism whereas in historicalthinking characterised by acceptance of linear history one finds rationalism, andsensitivity and metaphor in myth are opposed by intellect and ratio and logicin historical consciousness. When I say “rationalism” I mean rationalistic andhistorical reinterpretation of myths, like the one applied by Herodotus or thatfound in medieval Irish euhemerised descriptions of ancient gods and supernat-ural beings. The mythological way of thinking usually precedes any historicalapproach. To this might be added that mythological texts in Ireland are full ofexternal influences and references coming from outside Ireland and show us astage where mythological thinking is incorporated into historical and literarythinking. By this I mean that such texts combine mythological, historical and lit-erary elements, but they are not always clearly separated from each other within

12 Stokes 1895: 69.13 Met. Dinds. IV, 432–3; cf. HDGP : ‘Áth Féin(n)e (1) [s.v.] … [in] p. Tyfarnham, b. Corkaree’,

Co. Westmeath.14 Radner 1978: 104, 106.15 Murray 2004: § 57.16 One has to distinguish them from non-verbal texts, such as images, music or dance.There

are examples of such non-verbal early Irish texts pertaining to the field of mythology,such as idols on Boa Island, sculptures in Armagh cathedral and even surviving speci-mens of early music, which is why I draw such a distinction.

17 Albedil 2006: 232.18 Shkunayev 1991: 21.

VIII

The king in exile in Airne Fíngein:power and pursuit

in Early Irish literature1. Introduction

The notions of power and exile were closely related in early MedievalIreland. An early Irish tale Airne Fíngein (further AF ) illustrates just thisrelation and allows different approaches to the concepts of kingship and

supernatural periphery of the inhabitedworld.The aim of this chapter is to revisitthese concepts on the basis of a particular fragment from an Early Irish taleAirne Fíngein where a connection between status and the supernatural can beperceived and analysed.

Airne Fíngein (‘Fíngen’s Vigil’) is an early Irish tale devoted mainly to thedescription of wonders that followed the birth of Conn Cétchathach, the kingof Tara. These wonders, or wonderful manifestations, are divided into severalsections, and each of them constitutes an aetiological account similar to what wefind in the dindṡenchas. According to the text’s editor J. Vendryes the primitivenucleus of the tale was composed sometime in the late Old Irish period betweenthe ninth and the tenth centuries (Vendryes 1953: XXII). AF together with CathMaighe Léna, Baile Chuinn Chétchathaig and other tales are usually perceived asparts of the so called cycle of Conn Cétchathach.

The narrative of AF belonging to the kings’ cycle is characterised by a spe-cific perception of the origins of royal power and its loss. We are told how alocal prince (rígdomna) from Munster, Fíngen mac Luchta, and a woman fromthe síd (from Síd Cliach, modern Knockainy, Co. Limerick) Rothníam met onDruim Fíngin in Eastern Munster (a ridge of low hills between Fermoy and Dun-garvan (Met. Dinds. IV 445)) on the night of Samain. The chronotope of meet-ing is quite common for any mythological plot. Here in Airne Fíngein we havethe unity of space and time, moreover a kind of mythological recurrence of thismeeting is stated (Boí ben shíde iarom oc aithige Fhinghein in cach Samain do grés)(Vendryes 1953: 1).¹ Then Rothníam relates to Fíngen the tales of wonders that

1 The text ofAF from the MS. No. 1223 (D IV 2) from the library of the Royal Irish Academywas published by Annie M. Scarre in Anecdota from Irish Manuscripts, vol. 2 (Halle, Dub-lin, 1908), p. 1–10.The text from the Book of Lismore was transcribed and published by M.Mac Aongusa online at http://www.ucd.ie/tlh/text/mma.tlh.001.text.html (as accessedon 17 July 2013). See English translation of this version in Cross & Brown (1918: 29–47),French translation in Guyonvarc’h (1980: 189–202), Russian translation in Shkunayev(1991: 145–51), Serbo-Croatian translation in Matasović (2004: 13–21).

100 8. King in Exile in Airne Fíngein:

manifested themselves on the night of Conn’s birth. We are told in the metricaldindṡenchas of Druim Fíngin, that Fíngen was promised the sovereignty of Ire-land by Rothníam, that is why he later goes into exile when Rothníam tells himabout the future high-king Conn and his descendants and thus betrays Fíngenas her chosen would-be king (Met. Dinds. IV 336–38). Concerning this night, shetells him that she has fifty wonders (búada) to relate, though she mentions onlytwelve or so in the course of the tale. While the events of the tale take placethe same night, Fíngen and Rothníam remain on the same hill, and it is onlythe woman’s supernatural gift that allows them to be present in many places inIreland at the same time. It looks as if her knowledge (fius) travels separatelyand allows her to perceive all “wonders and gifts in the royal forts of Irelandand among her fairy hosts” (do decraib ⁊ do búadaib i r-rígdúnaib Éirenn ⁊ i n-asíthchuiribh) (Vendryes 1953: 1).This motif has parallels in other early Irish texts,for example in the earliest Bran material, the poem Immacallam in druad Brainocus inna banḟátho Febuil hóas Loch Ḟebuil (‘The dialogue of Bran’s druid andFebul’s prophetess above Loch Febuil’) (Carney 1976: 181; Carey 2002: 74–75).²

Rothníam ‘wheel + brilliance’ can be seen as an Irish counterpart of a Welshfemale mythological character Arianrhod (‘silver wheel’) or of a Gaulish goddessof fortune (?)*Argantorota. H. Birkhan (1997: 463) considers Welsh Arianrhod asa literary personage to be a later development of a lunar goddess of the samecircle as Mediterranean goddesses of fate Tyche, Nemesis (daughter of Night) orFortuna. Lunar context of Rothníam, whom Fíngenmeets at night, is also obviousenough. Later Rothníam appears in two variants (late Middle and early ModernIrish) of Aided Chuinn (‘The death of Conn’), where she prophesies the death ofConn at the green of Tara while Conn is preparing the Feast of Tara. Accordingto tradition, he was treacherously killed on the night of Samain (Ni C. Dobs 1936:163; Breatnach 1996: 95). Rothníam seems to have power over Conn’s fate fromhis birth right to his death and in the later tales she plays a role similar to thatof a folklore bean sí foretelling the death of a noble man.

Rothníam’s locus Síd Cliach (otherwise known as Cnoc Áine Cliach) alsotells a lot about her significance both in otherworldly and in royal context. Thisfairy hill is situated in the centre of pasture lands of the rich Munster plain(ÓhÓgáin 2006: 7). It is on Síd Cliach where the major tragic events happenedthat led to a battle of Mag Mucrima: a king from the síd, Éogabal, father ofFer Fí, has been slain there and his daughter Áine ravished by Ailill Ólum (LL:37090–37105; ODaly 1975: 41). These events also led to a great hostility of theotherworldly inhabitants of Síd Cliach towards the Munster dynasty and toa revenge performed by an otherworldly trickster Fer Fí. Although the events

2 In the early Modern Irish version of Oidheadh Chuinn Chéadchathaigh Rothníam de-clares: Is mise … ro innis gach ar hinniseadh do sgéalaibh geine Cuinn i gcéin boí ar far-rthrach (‘It is I … who told all the tidings that were told of Conn’s birth while he was inthe womb’) (Breatnach 1996: 96).

Power and Pursuit in Early Irish Literature 101

of Cath Maige Mucrima predate the birth of Conn according to a traditionalchronology, nevertheless they fit well into a pattern of treacherous behaviour ofthe fairy host from Síd Cliach and their ambiguous attitudes towards theMunsterdynasts. As Byrne points out, the mythological traditions of Eóganachta seemto centre on Cnoc Áine and the area to the south in county Limerick (Byrne1987: 182). In the case of Fíngen mac Luchta it is not exactly the Eóganachtadynasty but the Munster royal power as such that is challenged by a betrayalof the otherworldly authority from Síd Cliach. D. Wiley (2011: 287) has noticedthat AF makes no mention of the Eóganachta, the main rivals of the Uí Néill inMunster, and this might reflect in the tale Uí Néill’s aspirations to gain controlof Munster.

We hardly know anything special even in mythological terms about Fíngenmac Luchta except what is stated inAirne Fíngein and in a poem from the dindṡen-chas from the Book of Leinster 198 b 2 (Druim Fíngin II, Met. Dinds. IV 336–38).He is called rígdomna (lit. ‘material of a king’) in this Middle Irish dindṡenchasand he is never called a king in AF. The term rígdomna is known in a legal senseas indicating a person whose status is equal or nearly equal to that of a king, apresumptive royal heir from the derbfine (Jaski 2000: 237; Byrne 1987: 35–36).Fíngen’s brother is evidently a more successful character in early Irish tradition.According to AF it is Tigernach Tétbuillech (Tétbannach) mac Luchta, king ofEastern Munster (rí cóicid), the fifth which is named after his brother cóiced maicLuchta. This Tigernach is said to have been a contemporary of such well-knownkings of the fifths as Cú Roí, Ailill, Conchobar and Mes Gegra (Bergin & Best1938: 162). In other sources we encounter Eochu mac Luchta in his place.

Rothníam, who is termed riga[i]n (‘queen’) in the dindṡenchas, promised toFíngen a supreme royal power in Ireland. He was sure that he would rule Ireland(co ngebad Banba) but it did not happen (Met. Dinds. IV 336). The promises ofRothníam are hinting at the idea of a sacred marriage (cf. nodailfed cu Fotla Fáil‘he should meet Fotla of Fál’). Moreover, his recurrent encounters with the wo-man from the síd also suggest a sexual context. As Kim McCone (1990: 130) hasnoticed, ‘the king (flaith[em]) (or would-be king — G.B.) and the woman of sov-ereignty (flaith[ius]) mate and interact as respective representatives of humansociety and the divine powers manifested in nature or the cosmos as a whole’.Nevertheless the Munster dynast was disappointed by Rothníam (she acts as anarrative index of failure or unsuitability on the part of a would-be king): thenight described in AF is the night of a new high-king’s birth, the birth of ConnCétchathach. The mythological situation described in our text may be called tra-gic (as is true for manymythological situations).The tragic situation here is char-acterised by a certain opposition, a choice for the protagonist (Fíngen): either tolose himself (to die / to lose status) or to gain victory over the situation (while themartial victory appears to be impossible and only exile lets him be free and noble).Fíngen has a minimum of free choice, and the latter decision leads him to exile.Fíngen’s exile can be seen as a neutraliser of the above mentioned opposition,

IX

Conn Cétchathach:the image of ideal kingshipin Early Medieval Ireland

1. The name of Conn and his epithets

The personal name Connos ‘head’ is attested already in Gaulish (Dela-marre 2003: 123). It is characteristic of this anthroponyme that theform Connos (CONNO[S] EPILOS/SEDVLLVS) occurs on the coins of the

Lemovices as the sovereign’s name (Holder 1896: 1104). The coins were attrib-uted to a chief of the Lemovices killed in 52 BC at the Battle of Alesia (Sedulius,dux et princeps Lemovicum, De Bello Gall. VII, 88): thus the kingly tradition of thename goes back to the continental Celts (Colbert de Beaulieu 1978: 151). Thisformwas usually connectedwith OIr. conn, cond ‘protuberance, boss, chief, head’and ‘sense, reason’, once believed to be two separate words by T.F. O’Rahilly.The external connections are very uncertain: Skr. kandaḥ ‘tuber, bulb’, Greekkóndulos ‘bulge, fist’, Lith. kanduolys ‘stone (of fruit)’ (O’Rahilly 1946: 514–515).It is plausible that the primary meaning was ‘head’ and the meaning of ‘sense,reason’ was a secondary one (Delamarre 2003: 124). When we mention the firstmeaning of the word we have to take into consideration the widespread import-ance of ‘head’ and the symbolism of ‘head’ in Celtic regions. E. Bachellery andP.-Y. Lambert were less enthusiastic about the etymology of conn, which seemsto be quite uncertain to them, while they believed that there was without anydoubt only the one word conn/cond derived from *kondno- (LEIA: C-196).

Conn’s epithet—Cétchathach—presumably recalls a hundred battles fought byConn in every fifth of Ireland. Some of them are mentioned in Baile in Scáil. Thisepithet seems to reflect the same image as the name of an ideal Gaulish king Am-bigatus (‘fighter around himself’) known from Livy’s account, that also repres-ents a type of ‘the first king’ (V. 34.2). It is significant that according to differentsources not all Conn’s conflicts are victorious for him. It seems plausible to assessdifferent images of Conn Cétchathach from such texts as ‘The saga of FergusMacLéti’ (Echtra Fergusamaic Léti), ‘Fíngen’s Vigil’ (Airne Fíngein), ‘The battle ofMagLéna’ (Cath Maige Léna) and Lebor Gabála Érenn, as images of different mytholo-gical and quasihistorical characters later labelled with a popular name.¹ Even his

1 The conflicts he is involved in in these different texts are correspondingly: ‘The saga ofFergus Mac Léti’—with his brother Éochu Bélbuide (they are only two rival kings of theFéni in this 8th century text); CML—with the Southern king Mug Nuadat; and LGÉ—withthe Leinster king Éochu mac Erc.

114 9. Conn Cétchathach:

best known epithet probably had an earlier original form—cētchorach ‘of the hun-dred treaties? (Binchy) ‘der Erstvertragliche?’ (Thurneysen)’—supplied by the 8th

century tale of Fergus mac Léti, and by an even earlier 7th century poem (Binchy1952: 46) and the fragment from the laws (Laws IV 20.3). The adjective corachhas a variety of meanings deriving from cor ‘putting, throwing, letting go’, andit is used in a vague sense in alliteration sometimes with prefixes (DIL, 1 corach).The more known epithet of Conn deserves better attention as well: the first partcét- rather than meaning ‘hundred’ could well have been an ordinary numeralprefixed to the adjective with a meaning ‘first, original, primal’,² while cathachis an adjective with a meaning ‘vehement, warlike’ (DIL, 1 cathach). Thus it isquite possible that one of the original forms of the epithet was ‘first-warlike’,‘first-fighter’ and only later it has acquired a meaning—‘of hundred battles’. Acharacter with a similar epithet and functions is found among the heroes of CóirAnmann, namely Cass Cétchuimnech .i. Cass Cétcoimgneech .i. is é cétna rothinns-cain coimgnedha ⁊ filidhecht a Temhraigh artús (‘Cass Cétchuimnech, that is, CassCétcoimgneech: it is he that first began histories and poetry in Tara’) (Stokes &Windisch 1897: 292). The semantics of ‘primacy’ typical of Conn supports thishypothesis, and an image of Conn as a ‘first king’, which we shall discuss furtheron, is similarly likely to be an image of ‘the first warrior’.

2. The birth of Conn Cétchathach in Airne Fíngein:his genealogy and progeny

Dealing with the concept of an ideal king as it is shown in the tales from Conn’scycle, I would first like to focus on the Old Irish tale Airne Fíngein, which tellsof the wonders manifested in Ireland at the night of Conn’s birth (the burstingout of the Boyne, the appearance of the great oak Eó Mugna, the manifestationof the five roads of Ireland). In all mythologies a great attention is given to thecircumstances of gods’ and heroes’ birth. As the Rees brothers have stressed,the birth of a famous historical character is not different from the births of otherpeople. Gods and heroes on the other hand (being part of the cosmological imageof the world) are remembered for the supernatural situations and phenomenaspecific to their births, marriages and deaths (Rees & Rees 1961: 213). Conn’sexample is a characteristic one. The first wonder of this night mentioned byRothníam, the woman from the síd, to her interlocutor, the prince Fíngen, is thebirth of Conn:

2 DIL, 1 cét-. It corresponds to a Gaulish theme cintu- (from cintus ‘first’) frequently attestedin personal names such as Cintu-gnatos, Cintu-genus (Delamarre 2003: 116).

the image of ideal kingship in Early Medieval Ireland 115

“Is búaid mór ém,’ or in ben: ‘.i. mac genes innocht a Temraig do Ḟeidlimidmac Tuathail Techtmuir, do rí[g] Ērenn; gébaid Érinn in mac sin amalóenrainn ⁊ bentus Érinn asa cóicedaib ⁊ geinfit téora flaithi cóicat úaddia c[h]laind for Érinn ⁊ bit ríg uili cosin n-Órainech n-Uisnig, cen co patcomshaeglaig uili.’ (Vendryes 1953: 1–2)³ 5

‘There is a great gift indeed,’ said the woman: ‘i.e. a son who is born tonightin Tara to Feidlimid, son of Tuathal Techtmuir, the king of Ireland.That sonwill obtain Ireland in one lot, and takes it from its fifths, and will give birthto fifty three lords of Ireland among his descendants, and all of them willbe kings until Órainech of Uisnech, though they will not have the sameduration of life.’

The word, which designates the manifestation of the wonders, and Conn’s birthas the initial wonder necessary for the other to be manifest, is búaid with arange of meanings—‘victory, excellence, wonder, gift’. OIr. búaid, earlier boid Wb.24a 16 (pr. m.) from *boudi-, cognate with Welsh budd ‘profit, advantage’, OldBreton bud ‘id.’. The earliest Celtic form is attested in Gaulish boudi- ‘victory,advantage, profit’, as in the inscription from Lezoux, line 5: pape boudi macarni‘for each nourishing advantage’ (Fleuriot 1980: 143; Delamarre 2003: 83).⁴ Thisgift (búaid) seems to act, as a positive correspondence of geis (LEIA: B-107). Anyhero or king in early Irish tradition was given a number of taboos (gessi) at hisbirth. Usually druids with a power over the supernatural or supernatural beingsgave them to the future heroes or kings. The same applies to búada, which inour case are virtually given by Rothníam, a woman from the síd, on the night ofConn’s birth. Thus all these wonders are strongly connected

3 The variant readings are given from the four mss. containing the tale: Book of Fermoy(A), Liber Flavus Fergusiorum (B), D IV 2 (D), and Book of Lismore (L). The establishedtext is given by the author on the basis of these variants.

4 Cf. the famous queen of the Britons Boudicca ‘Victorious’.

1 Is ] as L. 1 búaid ] buaidh D, buáid B. 1 mór ]mor DA, mhor L. 1 ém ] om. D, eimhL. 1 or ] ar L. 1 ben ] bean B. 1 .i. ] om. LAB. 1 genes ] gheinis D, gheines L. 1 in-nocht ] inocht D, indocht A. 1 a Temraig ] om. LAB. 1 Ḟeidlimid ] ḟeidlimidh D, Feilimd

L, Feidlimmid A, Fedhl- B. 2 mac . . . Ērenn ] om. LAB. 2 gébaid ] ⁊ ateatha D, gebuidhL. 2 Érinn ] Eirinn D, Éirinn L, hErind AB. 2 in mac sin ] om. LAB. 2–3 amal óen-rainn ] i n-oenr[a]ind D, amal aonroinn L, amal oenraind A, amal oenraínd B. 3 ⁊ . . . cói-cedaib ] om.D. 3 bentus ] bentaisA, beantais B. 3 Érinn ] Eirinn L, hErindAB. 3 asa ] assaA. 3 cóicedaib ] coicedaid AB, coiceduibh L. 3 geinfit ] genfit AB, geinfidh L. 3 téora ] triD. 3 flaithi ] flaithe L. 3 cóicat úad ] .1. uad L, huad A, buad B, coecat do righoib uadhaD. 4 dia c[h]laind . . . n-Uisnig ] do neoch ghebus Erinn gusan Óraineach Uisnigh ⁊ bat righuili iat D. 4 dia c[h]laind ] om. L, dia claind AB. 4 for Érinn ] for Eirinn L, for hErind A,for Erind B. 4 bit ] bidhat L. 4 ríg ] righ L. 4 uili ] uile A, om. B. 4 cosin ] cusin L.4 Órainech ]Oirinach L, Orainech AB. 4 Uisnig ]Uisnigh L. 4 cen co pat ] gin co budh D.5 comshaeglaig ] comshaeghlach D, comhshaeglaig L. 5 uili ] oile B, om. DL.

X

Búaid Cuinn, rígróit rogaidian alliterative poem

from the Dindṡenchas1. Introduction

The poem in question has to my knowledge never been edited or discussedbefore; it belongs to the class of early Irish compositions called rosc. Itslanguage and its contents add much to our perception of the mythologem

of the five major roads of Ireland and their manifestation in early Irish tradition.The poem is devoted to the royal roads (rígróit) traditionally associated withConn Cétchathach, one of the legendary high-kings of Ireland. These five majorroads of Ireland made their wondrous appearance in Ireland on the night ofConn’s birth according to Airne Fíngein (‘Fíngen’s Vigil’) and the Dindṡenchas.¹The roads are not specifically described and it is only five heroes who are oftenassociated with the roads that are mentioned in the rosc. The language used inrosc is usually obscure, characterised by a concise, allusive mode of expression,distinctive archaic word order, vocabulary, and alliteration.Themetre in rosc haspeculiar rules. Editors often do not translate rosc, when it is found as a part of aprose narrative, although it may represent the earliest archaicmaterial, or at leastmaterial created in accordance with the archaic rules of composition, containingvarious features of early mythopoeic language. The ‘heptasyllabic’ metre of thispoem existed in the most archaic specimens of Irish poetry. It is considered oneof the oldest Irish metres and is found in the earliest Irish texts in our possession.Watkins described this metre as a “gnomic-epic” verse line; it is found insertedin the genealogies and epic or mythological tales, and is often used in “gnomic”legal verse. The same metre can be occasionally found among the Dindṡenchaspoems in archaic metres, for example in the Dindṡenchas of Ceilbe (Stokes 1894:318–19).

Watkins (1963: 218–219) in his article on archaic Irish verse defined this metreby the following features:

(1) it has a fixed line of seven syllables;

(2) the first four syllables are entirely free as to the number and position of thestresses, while the fifth syllable must be stressed and the sixth unstressed;

1 Cf. J. Vendryes’s edition based on the text from the Book of Lismore, see Vendryes 1953:9–10; and the diplomatic edition of the text from D IV 2 by Scarre (1908: 3–4); Stokes(1894: 454–455); LL: III, 169b (p. 754); Met. Dinds. III, 276–285.

128 10. Búaid Cuinn, rígróit rogaidi

(3) there is a compulsory break (word boundary) after the fourth syllable;

(4) the seventh syllable, while usually unstressed, may also occur stressed: itis “anceps”.

There is a possible example of this metre, which can be quoted from our poem:

Búaid Cuinn rígróit rogaidi

’x ’x ’x x | ’x x x

Conn’s gift, chosen royal roads

This line contains internal alliteration, assonance and complex alliteration (ofnon-initial consonants) (Sproule 1987: 185). There is sometimes connective al-literation between the words on either side of the caesura (we do not find thistype of alliteration in the alliterative poem on Srúb Brain, which is mentionedlater). This kind of binding alliteration is a distinct feature of the earliest typesof Old Irish poetry and sometimes points to the 7th century date (Kalygin 2003:66). As in many other examples from the texts with this metre, the lines here arelinked by alliteration of the last word of one line with the first stressed word ofthe succeeding line, as in:

Búaid Cuinn rígróit rogaidi,réle ría ngein gnáthamra.

‘Conn’s gift, chosen royal roads,manifestation before the birth of the famous wonderful one.’

Gerard Murphy (1973: 19) in his Early Irish Metrics suggested that this heptasyl-labic [4 | 3] verse was a result of a seventh century ‘experiment’ of Irish poetsbased on the model of Latin hymns: ‘syllable-counting and the use of identicalfinal feet were introduced into non-stanzaic verse reminiscent of the native versecomposed in short lines of similar rhythm and with regular alliteration (retoiricor rosc – G.B.)’ (Murphy 1973: 19). Watkins on the other hand argued stronglyfor the native and, even more, Indo-European character of the metre, speakingof its functional position in Early Irish society, and its use in the “gnomic” andthe “epic” genres. He compared this metre with cognate verse systems in Greek,Vedic and Slavic (Watkins 1963: 218–20).

J. Corthals however argues for the Latin origin of the Irish heptasyllabic line inthe retoiricswith trisyllabic cadence. He derives themetre from the Latin trochaicseptenarius. Corthals suggests that the style called roscad or retoiric originatedin the sixth century in imitation of Latin poetry and rhetorical style. This is

An alliterative poem from the Dindṡenchas 129

why the Latin metre derived from Greek links the Irish one with Indo-Europeanpatterns (Corthals 1996: 28–29, 36).This however does not exclude a reasonabledegree of continuity from the pre-existing native patterns as regards alliteration,assonance and mythopoetic vocabulary.

In our poem, there is an example of another type of metre with the structure[4 | 1]: Sogairm Sétnai Sicc (‘Praising of Sétna Secc’) (line 31 of the poem). Thismetre was also used in rosc and was the commonest pentasyllabic one. It canbe taken as a shorter variant of the archaic Old Irish heptasyllabic line, wherethe word boundary as caesura is mandatory. The pentasyllable may occur at theend of a long sequence of heptasyllabic lines, and function as clausula, as it doesin our poem. This is also the system of another Old Irish text, the Testament ofCathair Már (Watkins 1963: 230; Dillon 1962: 150 ff.).

As for its accentual scheme – (U) – / – (two stressed words before caesura andone after; one unstressed word (demonstrative particles etc.) is accepted beforethe caesura) the poem is reminiscent of the Gaulish magic incantation fromLarzac having the same sequence of stresses and the same alliteration pattern(Koch & Carey 2003: 3–4). For this reason I can suggest that the poem goesback to one of the earliest structural patterns of organisation of metrical textamong the Celts.

The poem under discussion here is inserted in the manuscripts between theprose introduction and the metrical dindṡenchas of Slige Dala. Neither Stokes norGwynn either edited or evenmentioned it in their editions.² TheDindṡenchas con-tains poems in archaic metres, which were often ignored by Stokes and Gwynn.They occur, for example, in the articles on Laigin, Ceilbe, Port Lairge, and SrúbBrain.³ As Ch. Bowen (1975/76: 116, 119) has suggested, these poems may ‘suggesta continuous tradition reaching back to pre-literate past’. Celtic scholars oftenleft rosc or retoiric without translation or edition.

I have to stress that one cannot examine and discuss the poem’s contentswithout the general context of the five roads’ manifestation plot as reflectedin AF and the dinnshenchas. Seven manuscripts contain the poem: the RennesMS (R) (fol. 108b2–109a1), MS 1322 from Trinity College library (formerly H. 3. 3)(H) (fol. 19ra(34a)); and five manuscripts kept in the library of the Royal IrishAcademy: the Book of Lecan (L) (fol. 239vb-240ra), the Book of Uí Maine (M)(fol. 97ra–b), the Book of Ballymote (B) (fol. 203va–b (380ab)), D II 2 (D) (fol. 35a)and B III 1 (B2) (fol. 45r). The Rennes manuscript has the clearest readings and

2 In his own private copy of ‘The Prose tales from the Rennes Dindṡenchas’ bound in onevolume W. Stokes has made a scribal note after the prose dindṡenchas of Slige Dala: dequibus dicitur : Buaid Chuind rigróit rogaide ⁊rl.He copied the beginning of our poem fromthe Rennes MS fol. 108b2 (The copy of ‘The Prose tales from the Rennes Dindṡenchas’formerly in possession of W. Stokes has been consulted in the Special Collections of theUCL library in London).

3 The alliterative poem on Srúb Brain was edited with accompanying glosses from H. 3. 3by W. Stokes (1893a: 81–86).

XI

Roads and knowledgein Togail Bruidne Da Derga

1. Introduction

The Old Irish tale Togail Bruidne Da Derga, ‘The destruction of Da Derga’shostel’ (henceforth TBDD), is one of the most important sources for thestudy of the Irish mythologem of the road and its place in the medieval

Irish literary world-view. The tale is preserved in three distinct recensions: Re-cension I is the earliest account of the tale, a short summary of the significantevents of the saga from the lost manuscript Cín Dromma Snechta found in LU ; Re-cension II is the most familiar version, preserved in eight manuscripts includingYBL and LU ;¹ and Recension III is a much longerMiddle Irish version (West 1999:413–4). The reign of Conaire Mór in Tara, and the story of his birth and descentare the main themes in the cycle of tales usually called the cycle of Conaire Mór.TBDD is the most important tale from this cycle. It is mainly the story of thedoomed king Conaire, and for the most part it is devoted to his forced journey tothe house of Da Derga, which became the house of death for him, his followersand his enemies.

The roads leading to Tara play an important role in the plot. Particularly im-portant in the conflict between Conaire and his supernatural enemies is SligeChúalann, the road leading to Da Derga’s hostel. The roads as landscape phe-nomena are never precisely described in the tale and we are going to focus hereon the actions and main protagonists associated with the roads, the gessi con-nected with them, and the place of the roads in the inaugural ceremony as itis described in TBDD. One particularly interesting phenomenon is the pursuitby supernatural forces on Slige Chúalann which bears resemblance to anothersupernatural pursuit on the major roads of Ireland described in Airne Fíngeinand the Dindṡenchas (Vendryes 1953: 9–10; Gwynn 1913: 276–82; Stokes 1894:454–5; Bondarenko 2003: 124–6).

The plot of Conaire’s story is arranged largely around the axis of SligeChúalann. The mythological space, as it appears in the scenes on the road, islinear, and the only two other roads (Slige Assail and Slige Midlúachra) men-tioned in TBDD arrange the space radially with the centre in Tara. As we shall

1 In this chapter I use mostly E. Knott’s edition of Recension II which is a transcript of YBL,with punctuation inserted (Knott 1936: xiii). I also occasionally use W. Stokes’s editionwhen he follows LU starting from § 21 (Stokes 1902: 5).

156 11. Roads and knowledge

try to demonstrate, several different levels in the plot of Conaire’s story—thelevel of blood (kinship, ancestry), the level of taboos/prohibitions (gessi), thelevel of names, and the level of places (roads)² —are combined with the helpof one predominantly important factor, namely, knowledge. It is knowledge thatmakes all these levels so diverse, crystallises them as distinctly separate entitiesand at the same time unites them in the space of the mythological situation andtemporal sequence of the plot. Let us consider those stages of the plot that areconnected with the three roads and especially mark (in italics) all the instancesof knowledge or its absence:³

I*. The bull-feaster in his sleep sees a naked man passing along the road ofTara with a stone in his sling at the end of the night. Knowledge is revealed tohim.

II. When he learns from his fosterers about the feast (they have knowledge),Conaire drives his chariot to Tara from the plain of the Liffey along SligeChúalann.

III. Conaire meets birds at Áth Clíath and pursues them until they reach thesea (without knowledge or forgetting about his geis).

IV. The birds (or birdmen) appear and turn their weapons against the youngman. The king of the birds, Nemglan, (he has knowledge) reveals to Conaire hisdescent and his gessi (V*).

VI. (Im) Conaire appears as the future king on the road before the gates ofTara naked with a stone in his sling. Three kings wait for him on each of the fourroads leading to Tara.

VII. (after a break in narrative) The king returns from North Munster viaUisnech and steps on the road of Assal. Conaire sees devastation and fire fromthe four cardinal points of the country while standing on the hill of Uisnech inthe centre of Ireland.

VIII. (Vm) Conaire and hismen ride by Slige Assail in the direction of Tara, butturn to the Northeast. The king hunts the otherworldly beasts of Cerna withoutrealising this until the hunt is over thus breaking his geis. He does not know

2 Just like in Oedipus’ story where the Greek variant of the same basic kingly myth isreflected (Byrne 1987: 59–60).

3 An asterisk indicates that the pattern of action is still in the world of the unmanifested(as in the dream of the bull-feaster, or in the gessi which are to be avoided) while ‘m’marks their manifestation.

in Togail Bruidne Da Derga 157

where to go; it is only his people who have knowledge (was it Mac Cécht, Con-aire’s helper?) and make him go in this direction. Conaire rides righthandwiseround Tara and lefthandwise round Brega. The king seems to forget about hisgessi repeatedly.

IX. The king is at the crossroad and is frightened (lack of knowledge).They cango only two ways: either along Slige Midlúachra or Slige Chúalann. Conaire’sretinue choose to go along Slige Chúalann.

X. Conaire wants to go to Da Derga’s hostel, but does not know the way tohis house. Mac Cécht reveals his knowledge of the way to Da Derga’s hostel andgoes to the house before Conaire.

XI. (Vm) Three Reds ride on Slige Chúalann before Conaire. Lé Fer Flaith triesto overtake them but fails.

XII. (Vm) Fer Caille overtakes Conaire on the road.

XIII. The reavers are on their ships at Benn Étair: one of them, Maine Andoe,sees Conaire and his retinue on the road from Benn Étair (Knott 1936: 14, line468).⁴ Conaire does not know that he sees him.

Slige Chúalann, the road that leads Conaire to his death, paradoxically enoughappears first in the tale leading the hero to his kingship. In other words, the roadof the inaugural ritual turns into the road of the ritual of death. In another OldIrish tale of the same cycle, De shíl Chonairi Móir, it is said that Conaire owedhis kingship to the áes síde. He is called ‘the king whom phantoms raised to thekingship’ (ri bertatar siabrai hirrige; Gwynn 1912: 136). Much later, at the end ofhis ‘road’ and his life, Conaire will be called ‘the king whom phantoms banishedfrom the world’ (Is é rí insin loingsite síabrai din bith; Knott 1936: § 26).⁵ Theroad then is as a special zone for the hero’s predetermined encounters withsupernatural forces.

The first time the road is mentioned in the tale is in the description of thebull-feast (tairbfheis).⁶ It is the bull-feaster who, after eating meat and drinkingbroth, sees in his sleep the future king of Tara, Conaire, on the road: ‘The man ofthe bull-feast when in his sleep saw a naked man at the end of the night alongthe road of Tara, and his stone in his sling’ (At-chonnairc fear na tairbfheisi in tan

4 Maine says: Is hí mo airdmes de, is é Conaire mac Etirscél co formnaib fear nÉrenn immedo-rét in tsligi, ‘It is my estimate from this, that this is Conaire, son of Etirscél, with thebest part of the men of Ireland, who rides on the road’.

5 Amended byThurneysen (1921: 621 n. 4) on the basis of the reading in Dublin, Royal IrishAcademy MS D IV 2.

6 On the tairbfheis see Dillon 1953: 248.

158 11. Roads and knowledge

sin ina chotlud fer lomnocht i ndiaid na haidche íar sligi na Temrach ⁊ a chloch inathailm; Knott 1936: 4). It is Slige Chúalann that is meant here. The road playsan important role in the king’s inauguration as the path leading to the royalcentre beginning with the dream of the bull-feaster. The bull-feaster mentionedhere is likely to be an intermediary between the truth, i.e. the knowledge, andthe interpreters (four druids) and his role is similar to that of the Pythia ofDelphi. Prophetically, Conaire’s coming into Tara always existed in that sourceof knowledge from which the bull-feaster receives his revelation.

The image of the naked youth with a sling has the closest parallel in youngDavid as king-to-be in the Bible who fights Goliath with his sling (1 Kings 17:40)and dances naked and triumphant before the Ark of the Covenant (2 Kings 6:20).It is not unlikely that his image was thought of by monastic redactors of the tale.Nevertheless, this image is not unique to the Bible. The naked king is an integralelement of the royal ceremony rājasūya in India (Heesterman 1957: 103–5). Thisnakedness signified a king’s returning to the state of an embryo and the ritualitself symbolised a new birth. In the same manner, Conaire’s nakedness at theend of the road and in the following ceremony symbolised his birth as a king.Also a sling was the normal weapon used when hunting birds. Conaire goes toTara immediately following a bird-hunt, and we are explicitly told that he hadused his sling against the birds (gaibid a thailm doib).

The arrival of a new king is often depicted in early Irish literature as an arrivalof a young warrior in Tara by one of its roads. In this way Lug Samildánachappears before the gates of Tara in Cath Maige Tuired going to the feast of Taraaswell. Lug, the guardian of the TúathaDéDanann against the Fomoire, becomestheir king afterwards, and he is already wearing the king’s diadem when hearrives at Tara (Gray 1982: 38). Also compare here Lug’s use of a sling againstBalor (Gray 1982: 60). In the same manner Niall of the Nine Hostages comes toTara when he is fit to be king (Stokes 1903: 192). That is why the road leadingto Tara was really the king’s road (rígrót), the road of the king’s arrival andinauguration.

When he learns from his fosterers about the feast in Tara, Conaire begins hisjourney to the bull-feast of Tara along Slige Chúalann from the plain of the Liffey.He reaches Áth Clíath (in modern Dublin) and then pursues beautiful birds inhis chariot until they are at the sea (it seems that the reavers with Ingcél landlater in the same area). The birds are described here as the supernatural shape-shifting creatures alike to Conaire’s father, associated with the síd. Birds as mes-sengers between sky and earth were especially venerated among the Celts (Ross1992: chapter 6) and a dress made of feathers (énchendach, ‘a hood made of feath-ers’) was supposedly worn by druids (such as Mog Ruith) and filid (Sjoestedt1926–1927: 110–12, § 117; Stokes 1862: 43 = Meyer 1912b, lines 1059, 1231). MadSuibne, a king in a Middle Irish tale, was naked, seemingly with feathers grow-ing from his skin and was also regarded as a bird-man.⁷ The road and the ford

7 Cp. also a 19th century Irish fairy tale where we find a bird with a human head (eán

XII

Oral past and written present in‘The Finding of the Táin’

Pre-Christian Irish culture—as any pre-literate society and culture—wasgoverned by the traditional type of memory. The medieval Irish texts, onthe other hand, witness gradual shift from this type of memory towards

the historical one. The historical type of memory is characterised by its specialattention to causes and effects, and to results of actions: this memory fixes cropsfor particular years but not the sowing-time. This type of memory causes writ-ten history to appear on the cultural level (Lotman 2000: 364). It is more or lessclear that this shift could not have been an instantaneous one especially as weknow that the early medieval Irish filid retained forms of the early traditionaltype of memory during the whole period of the Middle Ages. Certain storiesfrom the dindṡenchas and certain tales devoted to exemplary characters fulfilledmnemonic functions. For instance, both prose and metrical dindṡenchas enumer-ating the marvels which followed the birth of Conn Cétchathach refer to themore complex narrative of Airne Fíngein. The traditional type of memory hasbeen skilfully analysed by the Russian scholar Y. Lotman and was later appliedto the situation obtaining in Early Irish by S. Shkunayev (Lotman 1990: 247;Shkunayev 1994: 240). The essence of this memory is the maintenance of therules governing the existence of the world through the constant reproduction oftexts, which also may change through time (as early Irish texts for example), butwhich are believed to derive from time immemorial.The link between these textsis a pattern of ritual or action (as a killing of a king in a royal hostel described inTogail bruidne Da Derga and Bruiden Da Choca), or certain ritualistic contentionson the night of Samain in particular dindṡenchas (Knott 1936; Stokes 1900b;Toner 2007; Gwynn 1913: 276–284), but this role may also be played by all kindsof mnemonic devices like any natural or man-made phenomena—lakes, idols,trees, fortifications, roads and the like. These landmarks which can be describedas ‘points of attraction’ accumulate the memory of events in the sacred time andtypes of behaviour vital for the community.

It is also possible to specify the presumed opposition between unknownkeepers of oral tradition (druids? senchaide of the warrior arictocracy?) and thelearned professional group of filid in the Early Irish society as seen in the contextof the transitional stage from preliterate to literate culture.That is, whenwemen-tion the ‘traditional’ type of memory used by filid, the term needs certain elab-oration. Some scholars in the field of Celtic Studies when studying a particularmedieval text always presuppose existence of an unknown oral ‘primeval text’,

176 12. Oral past and written present

being a component of a large corpus of such texts. According to this view theextant texts were transmitted by filid and written down in the Middle Ages andare just distorted recollections and interpretations of the former ‘original texts’.In any case, as it was argued once by Jacques Derrida, the difference betweenany ‘original text’ and its interpretation corresponds to the difference betweenthe rabbi and the poet existing in the Jewish tradition (Derrida 1966: 102–103).Perhaps such was a difference between that unknown keeper of ‘initial texts’(druid? senchaid?) and the later fili.

The most intriguing feature is that the difference between ‘initial text’ and‘exegetic text’ (such as dindṡenchas or remscél) is concealed if not thrown awayaltogether in the poetic interpretations of the filid’s repertoire (i.e. the ‘initialtext’ seems to be ‘re-created’). This way the very interpretation begins to adoptthe functions of an ‘initial text’. This is likely to have happened at the stage ofthe filid’s entry into the written culture. Although even at this stage a fili ‘re-creating’ or ‘finding’ an ‘initial text’ reproduces a pattern or produces a certainsimulacrum following traditional prewritten rules. Simulacra then dominate overhistory (Baudrillard 1993: 71). The methods of such ‘restoration’ can be easilydemonstrated in the legends of ‘finding’ referring to the dindṡenchas found byAmorgen the fili or to the Táin found by Muirgen the fili (Stokes 1894: 277; Best& O’Brien 1967: 1119 [fol. 245b]). In other words certain kinds of oral pattern orperformance may have a referential base even for the lettered elite such as earlymedieval Irish filid (Goody 1986: 22 ff; Patton 1992: 93).

I would like to examine the structure of the tale Do Fhallsigud Tána BóCúailnge (DFTBC) in order to demonstrate the phenomenon of Early Irish re-ception of oral and written texts. The earliest recension of the tale is found inthe Book of Leinster (fol. 245b). This well-known short tale was probably com-posed in the Old Irish period (late ninth century), according to its recent editorK. Murray (2001: 19), but note the Mid.Ir. form no ragad, condit. 3 sg. from téit(Murray 2001: 21; LL fol. 245b, l. 32882). According to J. Carney (1955: 166) itconstitutes version А.1., the earliest existing variant of ‘The Finding of the Táin’.Nevertheless, there is one early reference to the finding of the Táin unnoticed byCarney. One of ‘The Triads of Ireland’ (Trecheng breth Féni, late ninth century)tells us of three wonders connected with the Táin:

Trí hamrai la Táin Bó Cúailnge: .i. in cuilmen dara héisi i nÉrinn; in marb diahaisnéis don bíu .i. Fergus mac Róig dia hinnisin do Ninníne éicius i n-aimsirCorbmaic maic Fáeláin; intí dia n-aisnéther, coimge bliadna dó.

Three wonders concerning ‘The Cattle-raid of Cúalnge’: the ‘Cuilmen’ inIreland in its stead; the dead who related it to the living, viz. Fergus macRóig reciting it to Ninníne the Wise in the time of Cormac mac Fáeláin;one year’s protection to him to whom it is recited (Meyer 1906: 8 § 62).

in ‘The Finding of the Táin’ 177

Thus at least two features of the tale are supported by the Triads, the first is aninvocation of the dead/ancestor to bear witness, an evidently pagan ritual¹ (cf.later transformation of this practice into the fast against Fergus’ descendants,Saints Brendan, Ciarán and Caillín, in another variant of the story). The secondfeature is the story of how Isidore’s Etymologiae first appeared in Ireland. Asfor the pre-Christian substratum of the invocation, it is interesting that theacquisition of knowledge is possible here only with the intercession of the oncemighty and wise dead whose grave is a special locus where the hero has to sit orto sleep. The same practice was known in Scandinavian literature where we finda story of a shepherd who became a skald after sleeping on the famous skald’sgrave while the latter appeared in all splendour and delivered his poetic gift tothe shepherd (Ellis 1943: 108). According to Eliade, this custom among Celtsand Germans is typologically similar to the initiation rituals of the prospectiveshamans or magicians who had to spend the night close to dead bodies or on thegraves (Eliade 1964: 382).

Even in the Iliad one finds a deliberate wordplay when σημα ‘sign, hint’has another meaning ‘tomb, grave’. Gregory Nagy underlines the importanceof the sepulchre in Homeric epos as a physical embodiment of κλέος ‘glory’ ofa hero which is the main subject of poetry. Patroclus’ grave becomes the hint,the reminder of the presence of the Dead whose spirit Achilles has awoken. Inthe case of the Iliad, a possible interpretation can take the poem itself as σημαin which the will of Zeus is strengthened and poetry becomes the poet’s grave(σημα) (Nagy 1992: 283–292). Táin Bó Cuailnge has often been compared to theIliad (especially by J. Carney 1955: 307, 311–12, 321–22), on which it is suggestedto have been modelled by Irish literati. However, the influence of the Greekoriginal text with all its wordplay is hardly possible in early medieval Irelandwhere the original Greek was hardly known. It is more likely to be the case thatthe perception of a poet, a hero and the hero’s grave had universal character, orat least that it was characteristic of the Indo-European poetics.

Tírechán’s ‘Collectanea’, written in the late seventh century, contains an epis-ode possibly deriving from such ancient practice involving the graves of the her-oes. St Patrick, together with his followers, finds a huge mound and the sainttemporarily resurrects the dead giant from the grave in order to witness God’spower and mercy: to baptise the dead one and to save his soul. The giant (whohad been a royal swineherd in his life) arises from the grave and tells his storyto the audience (Bieler 1979: 154). Proinsias Mac Cana considered this episode,

1 As J.F. Nagy suggests, ‘the means of restoring the dead hero [Fergus—GB] to life aretotally secular, resulting in an epiphany that seems to have more to do with necromancythan with any Christian notions of communion with the souls of the dead’ (Nagy 1997:19). The pre-Christian character of the epiphany in the ‘Finding of the Táin’ is supportedby Classical evidence in the lost work of Nicander of Colophon cited by Tertullian: “Celtsare said to spend the night near the tombs in order to receive special oracles from thedead” (see the passage discussed in Freeman 1994a: 215–16; 1994b: 45–47).

178 12. Oral past and written present

later also found in the Vita tripartita, as a model for the later recensions ofDFTBCin which Fergus is described as a giant (Mac Cana 1962: 3–5). However, Fergus’gigantic proportions are referred to as commonplace in many tales of the Ulstercycle.

Ninníne Éices—mentioned in the Triads as the ‘finder’ of the Táin—is believedto have lived in the late seventh-early eighth century just like Senchán Torpeist,another claimant to this role (Ó Fiaich 1961/1962: 97–98). Senchán (fl. c. 580–650)was a rígfile of Guaire, the king of the Connachta (ÓMáille 1921–23, 75). Atany rate, early Irish literature does not have a unique figure whose task it is torecover the lost oral text (of the Táin). Instead we have a number of literary ormythological personswho are important in their function asmedia in the processof revelation. It is quite significant that even the Triads comprise two differentperceptions of the Táin’s text: (1) as an oral text communicated by the dead tothe living, or giving protection to its audience; (2) as a written text exchangedfor the precious Cuilmen.

The Old Irish term for Isidore’s Etymologiae, Culmen, derives from Latin cul-men ‘height, summit’ (earlier Lat. columen). OIr. culmen—evidently an equivalentof Latin summa—served as a term for the supreme compendium of knowledge. Anative Irish equivalent of the termwhich has served as a model for an alternativeOIr. designation of the Etymologiae is druim(ne) suíthe ‘summit of knowledge, oflearning’ (DIL, s.v. druimne, l. 77). This native term refers to the knowledge andart of the filid acquired only after many years of learning. Druimne suíthe is alsoa term denoting the rhymes of the last year of the fili’s learning. For example, afili calledDruim Suíthe is named as the author of the seventh-century alliterativepoem ‘Eó Rossa’ from the dindṡenchas (Stokes 1895: 277–79). The poet’s nameis unknown in any other early Irish text and clearly has allegorical significance.Suíthe is a term for the knowledge of suí ‘sage’< *su-wids while this knowledgewas open to being learned or grasped from teachers, as opposed to fius whichwas thought of as hidden knowledge perceived only after its revelation. This isalso relevant for the story of the finding of the Táin where an eastern sage (suí )plays the most important role in the Táin’s concealment and its treatment as a‘learned’ written text.

Isidore of Seville (560–635 AD) wrote his Etymologiae between 612 and 620AD (Shabelnikov & Torshilov 2000: 38). T. ÓMáille, exploring the historicalbackground of DFTBC, thought that Isidore’s Etymologiae might have reachedIreland in the middle of the seventh century through the mediation of SenchánTorpéist (ÓMáille 1921–1923: 75). The earliest manuscript fragments of the Ety-mologiae are housed at the monastery of St. Gall. These fragments are writtenin an Irish hand, and are to be dated perhaps as early as the mid-seventh cen-tury (Barney et al. 2006: 23). In any case, it seems that the Etymologiae reachedIreland not long after its composition. Later the Etymologiae became a modelfor Irish etymological and etiological texts such as ‘Cormac’s Glossary’, Cóir An-mann and the dindṡenchas created at the edge of native learning and Latin Late

XIII

The migration of the soulin Early Irish tales

The concept of the soul and its destiny plays an important role in all myth-ologies and religious beliefs. It may be said that the idea of the immortalsoul is common to any type of religious consciousness with very few

exceptions. The object of our research here in the field of early Irish mythologyis to attain a possible understanding of the human soul and its position in thatparticular early Irish worldview. The sources that we have at our disposal forthe study of the place of the soul in Celtic myth (as with the study of almost anyCeltic mythologem) lie in two separate fields: classical Greek and Latin literat-ure and the medieval insular literatures. As it is true for any Celtic mythologicalproblem, and even more so for the sources dealing with the mythologem of thesoul, the classical perception in the first case and the Christian perception inthe second case conceal a (pre‑)existing Celtic doctrine. It would be wrong topresuppose that the Irish in the pre-Christian epoch were indifferent towardsreligion, rituals and beliefs associated with these rituals; on the contrary, thereis some evidence of an elaborate religious organisation and doctrine. Thereforeit is reasonable to search for traces of a unique early Irish conception of the mi-gration of the soul in those limited sources available to us. However, one has tobe aware that all such traces inevitably also reflect the attitudes and approachesof the comparatively new Christian and written culture.

The question of metempsychosis and reincarnation of the soul in Celtic spir-ituality always attracted attention of both amateurs and serious Celtic scholars.Due to all the complications related to Celtic materials that I mentioned above,this interest has given rise to exaggerated speculations among amateurs andcautious scepticism among professional Celticists. If we concentrate on morerecent Celtic scholars who have commented on supposed cases of reincarnationas reflected in insular Celtic literatures we have to mention Ch.-J. Guyonvarc’hand F. Le Roux who defined metempsychosis as ‘passage d’éléments psychiquesd’un corps dans un corps’ and suggested that nothing like metempsychosis wasknown among Celts and all cases rather refer to ‘multiple states of being’ (2005:271).¹ It is important and should be taken as a starting point in our discussionthat P. Mac Cana referred to all well-known cases of metamorphoses in earlyIrish and Welsh literature as quite different from Pythagorean metempsychosisor to the Hindu saṃsāra. Talking about Fintan’s and Taliesin’s reincarnations,

1 The concept is taken from R. Guénon (1932: ch. VI et passim).

184 13. The Migration of the Soul

or the swineherds’ transformations, he sums up: ‘Far from implying that theprocess of serial reincarnation affected all animate beings, these legends restrictit to a relatively small number of instances, all of them concerning either deitiesor mythical personages’ (Mac Cana 1983: 122). V. Kruta (1991: 506) is probablymore correct in suggesting that the reincarnation in Celtic religion ‘was perhapsoriginally reserved for a small group of initiates, as was the case with observersof the comparable doctrines of Orpheus and Pythagoras’. The most recent editorof De chophur in dá muccida, U. Roider, took cophur of the title as etymologicallyrelated to Skr. saṃsāra, the cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth (i.e. reincarna-tion) within Hinduism (Roider 1979: 75). Roider’s approach with her close associ-ation of early Irish beliefs with the Hindu doctrine met criticism from Ch. Drögewho opposed her view on the basis of his thorough analysis of the early Indianconcept of saṃsāra (Dröge 1982: 261–9). We shall discuss Dröge’s argumentslater when we deal with linguistic difficulties connected with Roider’s etymo-logy. B. Maier, in his general overview of Celtic (mostly Continental) religioussystems, was rather sceptical about the problematic issue of pre-Christian Irishbeliefs in the soul’s transmigration, and suggested a common fairy-tale motifunderlying all relevant stories from the early Irish and Welsh literatures (Maier2004: 144). Before discussing all our relevant material I have to stress that evencomparatively late fairy tales often contain fragments of the earlier and archaicworld-view. Finally J. Carey in his comments on the fragment from AugustinusHibernicus argues that druids in Ireland maintained ‘some form of the doctrineof transmigration attributed to their continental counterparts by Greek and Ro-man authors’ (Carey 1998: 58). We shall refer to this piece of evidence later inour discussion.

Rather than trying to summarise all relevant traces of the mythologem ofthe soul among the Celts, I would like to make an attempt to review some as-pects of the idea of the migrating soul in early Irish literature by commentingon some fragments from three tales: Compert Con Culainn (‘The conception ofCú Chulainn’), Tochmarc Étaíne (‘The wooing of Étaín’) and De chophur in dámuccida (‘About the cophar (struggle) of the two swineherds’).² These stories areconcerned both with aspects of metempsychosis and with the soul’s metamorph-osis in early Irish myth. The question of how knowledge and self-knowledge aresignificant in the stories of the soul’s migration will be raised. I shall also discusssome parallels in other early Irish tales and in other traditions.

A passage where knowledge/wisdom from the síd is associated with magicalabilities of transformation is found in the Old Irish tale De chophur in dá muc-cida (hereafter DCDM), a remscél to the Táin, dated by Thurneysen (1921: 278),

2 cophur (dat. sg. of cophar) occurs in early Irish literature only in the title of this tale. Onthe meaning and etymology of the word, see below.

in Early Irish Tales 185

approximately, to the ninth century.³ The story tells of two swineherds from thesíde⁴ and specifies in the introduction that they had from the start some kindof friendly agreement (carddes) and that both of them were knowledgeable inpagan magic skills:

Ro-boí dano cardess eturru-saide. .i. Suīthe ngentlechta la cechtarde, ocus nos-delbtais in cech richt, amal no-bíthMongánmac Fiachna. Ba hē cardess na dāmuccaid-se: In tan ba mess la Mumnechu do-thēiged in muccaid atúaid conamuccaib cāelaib fadess. In tan ba mess dano atúaid no-thēiged in muccaidandess fathúaid.

There was then a friendly agreement between them, i.e. each of them hadpaganwisdom and they used to transform themselves into every form, justlike Mongán mac Fiachna used to do.⁵ Such was the agreement betweenthe two swineherds: when there was mast in Munster the swineherd fromthe north used to go south with his thin pigs. When there was mast in thenorth the southern swineherd used to go north (Roider 1979: 26).

The function of carddes here is rather similar to a usage we find in another OldIrish tale De gabáil in t-ṡída, where there is carddes between the Dagda and thesons of Míl: thereafter the former saves corn and milk for the latter and is able todivide the underworld below Ireland among the Túatha Dé (Hull 1933: 54).⁶ Theessence of the agreement between the swineherds is elaborated in the last twosentences in the fragment. The reference concerning suīthe ngentlechta (‘paganwisdom, knowledge, lit. knowledge of the pagans’) looks irrelevant (or displaced)in the fragment which deals with the treaty (carddes) between the two swine-herds. This could be one of the reasons why Roider (1979: 19) takes the commentas a later insertion, especially as it seems to be the only Christian element inthe tale. It seems to be relevant here that suíthe is the term for the knowledge of

3 J. Carey reminded me (personal communication) that na as a form of the dual articleattested in DCDM (as in cardess na dā muccaid-se from the fragment discussed below) isMiddle Irish.

4 According to the Dindṡenchas they were both sons of Smuchaill son of Bacdub and arementioned as champions from Munster and Connacht consequently under protection(for foesam) of Bodb and Ochall. In their combat they display their ‘swineherd’s craft’ (aceird muccada) which is probably equivalent of their ‘pagan wisdom’ (suīthe ngentlechta)mentioned in DCDM (Stokes 1894: 452–3).

5 This is a hyperlink to the tales of transformations / reincarnations performed byMongánmac Fiachna, a semihistorical Ulster king and a semidivine hero said to be a son ofManannán mac Lir. The earliest attestation of his shapeshifting abilities is found inImmacaldam Choluim Chille ⁊ ind óclaig (Carey 2002: 60). See also references to Mongánin Immram Brain (Mac Mathúna 1985: 42 § 53, 55).

6 The same is true about the treaty (kerennyδ) made by Pwyll and Arawn, the king ofAnnwfn, in the first branch of the Mabinogi (Koch & Carey 2003: 412).

186 13. The Migration of the Soul

the suí ‘sage’ (sometimes in a Christian sense, a professional in Latin learning) <*su-wids (cf. Sanskrit suvidyā- ‘good knowledge’) open to being learnt or graspedfrom teachers as opposed to more occult fius which was sometimes thought ofas hidden knowledge perceived only after its revelation (see chapter 12 of thisbook; LEIA S-199; Breatnach 1981: 60). This native term refers to the knowledgeand art of the filid acquired only after many years of learning. In this artificialexegetical context it is noteworthy that suíthe is specified as ngentlechta (‘of hea-thendom’). No correspondence to a phrase such as ‘pagan wisdom’ or ‘wisdomof the pagans’, to my knowledge, is found elsewhere in the Bible or in the Fath-ers of the Church: nothing good is expected from the pagans, and this conceptshould not be confused with the ‘wisdom of the Greeks’ (i.e. philosophy) well-known in the patristic sources. ‘Heathendom’ (gentliucht) is mentioned in theintroduction to the tale possibly for synthetic chronological reasons: the actiontakes place before the birth of Christ and before the introduction of Christian-ity to Ireland.⁷ Another reality associated with paganism in the tale is the factthat both swineherds belong to the aés síde and serve the kings of the síd. Theset phrase (suíthe gentliucta) seems to be specific to early medieval Ireland andoccurs also in Lebor Gabála (LL: 9a3) referring to the Túatha Dé, where it clearlyreflects the compiler’s synthetic view of them (combtar fortaile for cerddaib suíthegentliucta).⁸ Nevertheless, as nasalization indicates, suíthe in suíthe ngentlechtain DCDM seems to be the only attested early neuter form of this noun (cf. DILS 426.55), and if we are dealing with a gloss on an earlier composition, it wasprobably an early gloss (Thurneysen 1946: § 262.4). As for the nature of this‘pagan wisdom’ and its association with the migration of the soul, this will bediscussed below.

As a result of their dispute as to whose magical power (cumachta) was thestronger the swineherds successively turned themselves for two years into spe-cial kind of birds (senén), then back into human shapes, then again for two yearsinto water creatures, then into stags, warriors, spirits and flying dragons. Andfinally, ‘they both fell down out of the air, and became two water worms’.⁹ One

7 gentliucht by extension also acquired a more precise meaning ‘wizardry, heathen spells,magic’ (DIL s.v.). It might be relevant to notice here in connection with magic and pig-herding in DCDM an expression mucca gentliuchta ‘magic pigs, pigs of heathen magic’used for horrible pigs that came out of the cave of Crúachain in Cath Maighe Mucrama(ODaly 1975: 48 § 34).

8 Cf. a corresponding passage on the Túatha Dé Danann in Cath Maige Tuired: combtarfortlide for súthib cerd ngenntlichtae ‘until they surpassed the sages of the pagan arts’(Gray 1982: 24 § 1).

9 Note a specific transformation from dragon into worm. Close associations of dragonwith worm are found elsewhere in Indo-European mythologies. C. Watkins comparesan Old Irish charm against worms (swallowed in water) in an Old English collection of‘leechdoms and wortcunning’ gono mīl orgo mīl marbu mīl ‘I slay the beast, I slaughterthe beast, I kill the beast’ to Atharvavedic vaḥkrimayo hanmi ‘I slay you, o worms’ and

XIV

Goidelic hydronyms in Ptolemy’sGeography: myth behind the name∗

The aim of this chapter is to highlight some comparisons with Goidelichydronyms as preserved by an ancient Greek geographer of the 2nd cen-tury AD, Claudius Ptolemaeus, and consequently to illustrate the myth-

otoponymic tradition of early medieval Irish narratives in a deeper time frame.One should be aware that the subject of ‘Ptolemy’s Ireland’ has been discussedand analysed by a number of Celtic scholars, linguists and historians of geo-graphy.¹ The subject’s marginal status, its liminal position on the edge of Clas-sical, Indo-European and Celtic studies, history of geography and historical lin-guistics, makes it both difficult and appealing to many modern researchers inthe field. A short chapter on the subject can, of course, touch only a very limitednumber of questions with regard to early Goidelic hydronyms and their percep-tion in medieval Ireland, but it also aims to attract the attention of colleagues tosome ‘gravitation centres’ in the geography of Ptolemy’s Ireland.

Modern scholars know practically nothing about the life of Ptolemy, a famousastronomer, mathematician and geographer (after AD 83–ca. 168).² According tolater sources, he lived and worked in Alexandria. Ptolemy’s corpus is very ex-tensive and contains systematic information on different natural sciences. Heis well known for his astronomical and chronological works based on his geo-centric (or rather oceanocentric?) model of the universe. His system is reflectedin the astronomical treatise now known as the Almagest (in Greek, Η ΜεγάληΣύνταξις, ‘The Great Treatise’; originally Μαθηματική Σύνταξις, ‘TheMathemat-ical Treatise’). His famous geographical compilation theGeography (ΓεωγραϕικὴὙϕήγησις) is a thorough discussion of the geographical knowledge of theGraeco-Roman world, containing numerous place names based on the work of an earliergeographer, Marinus of Tyre, and on the gazetteers of the Roman and ancientPersian empires. The second chapter of the second book is devoted to the west-ernmost island of the ancient ‘inhabited world’ (oikoumene), Ireland, which iscalled by Ptolemy Ἰουερνία (Geography 1. 2. 2).

∗ Many thanks to IwanWmffre, who offered many suggestions with regard to ContinentalCeltic material and was very helpful in correcting the initial version of this chapter. I amtotally responsible however for all interpretations, translations and any faults herein.

1 O’Rahilly 1946: 3; Pokorny 1954; Mac an Bhaird 1991–93; Toner 2000; de BernardoStempel 2000; Isaac 2004.

2 Pecker 2001: 311.

198 14. Goidelic Hydronyms in Ptolemy’s Geography:

Ptolemy’sGeography, to a large extent, was based on a lost treatise byMarinusof Tyre, his elder contemporary. It has been suggested that Marinus in his turnderivedmost of his information about Ireland from thewritings of Philemonwhoprobably worked between AD 20 and 70 immediately before the Roman invasionof Britain under Claudius in AD 43, and learned many details from merchantsvisiting Ireland.³

Ptolemy’s list of Irish place names has 15 hydronyms, 20 ethnic or tribalnames, 11 names referring to settlements and three referring to islands. Some ofthem are clearly Celtic, some are probably Celtic, and some are obscure.⁴ Britishand Roman travellers andmerchants were muchmore familiar with the coastlineof Ireland, more preciselywith the southern and eastern coasts.The northern andwestern coasts of Ireland were difficult to reach because of strong currents. Thatis why Ptolemy’s Ireland is more detailed in its eastern and southern directions.

Here we are going to discuss some Goidelic hydronyms from Ptolemy whichcan, with comparative safety, be located and associated with their analoguesin early Irish literature. It is important that this kind of complex comparisoninvolves data from the only existing map of pre-Christian Ireland, a country witha traditional and conservative society practically untouched by any Classicalinfluence. The difficulty of the toponymic research involved lies in the fact thatPtolemy supplies us only with authentic place names, while all descriptions,learned and folk etymologies, as well as myths and legends attached to a placename, are to be found in medieval texts written down in Christian Ireland andin a Christian milieu. Nevertheless this situation is more promising than thatwhich obtains in ancient Gaul with its abundance of authentic Celtic place namesand theonyms unsupported by almost any relevant narrative references to acorresponding mythology or place-lore.

One of Ptolemy’s hydronyms clearly located and rich in medieval mytholo-gical lore is Βουουίνδα (possibly for Βουο<ο>υίνδα or Βωουίνδα),⁵ interpretedby medieval literati as ‘the Cow-white (water/stream)’; the river corresponds totoday’s Boyne on the eastern coast of Ireland, that is OIr. Boänd (arch. Boënd).According to de Bernardo Stempel, this is the old ‘comparative compound’ mean-ing ‘white as a cow’ (referring either to the river or to the corresponding god-dess)⁶ which was later reinterpreted as ‘white cow’ after the reversal of the orderof constituents.⁷ A different etymology has been proposed by E. Campanile onthe basis of M. Dillon’s suggestion: Campanile makes a comparison with Vedicgovindú- (RV 9. 96. 19), an epithet of Soma ‘who obtains cows’, implying that both

3 Tierney 1976: 261–63.4 de Bernardo Stempel 2000: 97–98.5 de Bernardo Stempel 2000: 103; Stückelberger & Graßhoff 2006: 144 § 8.6 Pokorny 1954: 111.7 de Bernardo Stempel 2000: 103.

Myth behind the Name 199

compounds should date back to the PIE age.⁸ On the Old Irish level, the secondelement of the compound is thus related to ro-finnadar ‘finds out, discovers’: theform, serving both as a river name and a theonym according to this interpreta-tion, could have been later reinterpreted by folk etymology andmedieval glossat-ors as ‘cow + white’. It is clear that the river name as well as a correspondingtheonym goes back to a compound of bó (*gwōu-) ‘cow’ and a more problematicsecond component.

A votive inscription from Gaul (Utrecht, 3rd century AD?) addressing agoddess *Borvobo(v)indoa: DEAB(US) BORVOBOE(N)DOAE COBBAE; BOR-VOBOENDOAE.⁹ The first component here refers to another Gaulish theonymBormō (Borwo-) ‘boiling, burbling’ which is applied to a god of the thermalsources.¹⁰ The second component corresponds to Ireland’s (Common Celtic?)Βουουίνδα reflected in Ptolemy. This Gaulish divinity is associated with watersources and cows to the same extent as its Irish counterparts. It is significant thatour Goidelic river name Βουουίνδα, with its corresponding OIr. theonym Boänd(arch. Boënd), is paralleled with a cognate theonym in Continental Celtic.

Ptolemy’s reference to the River Boyne indicates its importance in early Irishsociety. It is remarkable that the Boyne valley had been an important religiousand burial centre in the Neolithic period (around 2500 BC).¹¹ This was the periodwhen the famous burial mounds Newgrange (Bruig na Bóinne, Síd in Broga),Knowth (Cnogba) and Dowth (Dubad) were built in the area. The sites had bothritual and astronomical functions and were venerated as dwellings of the godsin pre-Christian Ireland. The cairn of Newgrange is partly made up of medium-sized water-rolled stones from the river bed,¹² which is a clear sign of religiousand ritualistic importance of the Boyne in the Neolithic period.

Whereas the ancient hydronym—dating back to the 1st century AD at thelatest—is not accompanied by any corresponding narratives, medieval Irish textspreserved several versions of a river-goddess myth related to the Boyne and itseponym. One of the earliest versions is to be found in an Old Irish (9th–10th-century) tale Airne Fíngein (‘Fíngen’s Nightwatch’). The tale connects the river’smanifestation with the dismemberment of the goddess and her divine body dur-ing the night when an Irish over-king Conn Cétchathachwas born. Bothmetricaland prose etiological stories (dindṡenchas) about the origin of the Boyne are silentwith regard to the birth of the king: they mention only how the river was made

8 Dillon 1975: 122; Campanile 1985: 478. See also Delamarre’s arguments and hisanalysis of a Celtic personal name Contobouiouindillus as ‘qui-a-obtenu-cent-vaches’(Delamarre 2004: 130–31).

9 Whatmough 1970: 865, 867. L’Année épigraphique 1977 (1981), 539. There are also sometestimonies that show a collocation of Boruo and Damona (a cow-goddess perhaps) inCIL 13. 2806; 5911; 5914–19 (Bourbonne-les-Bains).

10 Delamarre 2003: 82–83.11 O’Kelly 2005: 86.12 O’Kelly 1982: 15.

XV

Swineherd in Celtic lands

Early Irish prose narratives and law tracts often mention a professional,not particularly privileged, but who was somehow endowed with a spe-cific rank and honour in the traditional society. I refer to the swineherd.

As often occurs when confronted with the early Irish (or insular Celtic) phenom-ena it will be rather difficult to distill rare historical facts from the backgroundof the idealised or mythological reality where all our swineherds and their pigsmay be discovered. Pigs are very different from other domestic animals, and aswineherd (OIr. muccaid, MW meichiad) differs a lot from other herdsmen. Pig-keeping was one of the pillars of the early Irish and Welsh agriculture: no feastdescribed in the literature would be suitable without some pork being served.It is therefore also notable that at Navan Fort, the site of Emain Macha of theUlster cycle, the majority of Early Iron Age faunal remains belonged to the pig(Mallory 1992: 120; McCormick 1997: 118–19). The pig bones from the excava-tion came from the phase preceding the Forty Metre structure. Phase 3, dated c.600–400 BC, is occupied by a high status population. The bones might containevidence of princely feasts held on the settlement (McCormick 1994: 183). Pigswere kept especially because of their tasty and nutritious meat, which was eatenfresh or preserved by salting and smoking. It is worth noting that bacon wasexported to Rome from Gaul, and also Gaulish ham was particularly famous inRome. Early Irish farming exploited pigs’ hides and bones were used for domesticpurposes (Edwards 1996: 58; Kelly 1997: 84–86).

Strabo, writing in the early first century AD, described how pigs in the regionof the Belgae in Gaul ‘run wild, and they are of exceptional height, boldness,and swiftness; at any rate, it is dangerous for one unfamiliar with their waysto approach them, and likewise, also, for a wolf’ (IV, 4, 3, H.L. Jones translation).Nevertheless, La Tène (in modern Switzerland) was probably the only settlementin Celtic Europe where a crossbreeding between domestic and wild pigs wasattested, producing larger animals. At all other sites in Continental Celtic Europe,small pigs were found, the smallest in the entire prehistoric period.Their withersheight hardly reached 70 cm, and because of their small size their remains canbe easily distinguished from those of the wild swine (Bökönyí 1991: 431). Thereis a remarkable lack of wild pigs’ bones at Navan Fort in Ireland (McCormick1997: 118–19). Early Irish pigs also would have been small, long-legged, and hairy(Edwards 2005: 266). The pigs mentioned in the early Irish narrative texts weresometimes tended by swineherds in the woods: pigs were mostly fed on the oak

206 15. Swineherd

mast. Swineherds were often left to themselves. They had the right to wanderin the oak forests for long periods of time disregarding any existing bordersbetween túaths. In practice, they were marginal members of early insular Celticsocieties.

Fig. 1: The statue of the deity from the environsof Euffigneix (Haute-Marne), 1st century BC,Musée d’archéologie nationale, Saint-Germain-en-Laye (after Schlette 1984: 130)

It is also important that the pig hada certain religious meaning amongthe pagan Celts. Whole carcasses orlarge chunks of pork were placed intothe graves of the Celtic aristocracy.Pre-Roman or early Gallo-Roman andBritish sculpture reflects traces of a‘pig cult’ (for instance, the statue fromEuffigneix, or the British god Veteriswith an ornament of pigs).

It is significant that a hero’s por-tion (curad-mír) according to early Ir-ish literature presented a large por-tion of a cooked pig (Maier 1997: 224).Such importance has to be reconciledwith the fact that the pigs in Indo-European culture are often associatedwith death, putrefaction, burials andthe lower world in general. In earlymedieval insular Celtic literatures thepig often plays the role of a death mes-senger. This chthonic character owesmuch to the very nature and habits ofthe animal. Pigs lie in the dirt; theydig soil and damage roots in searchof food. Moreover, although the pig isnot a beast of prey, it feeds on flesh:it devours snakes (without sufferingfrom the snake poison), it eats car-rion or motionless, helpless victims.Pigs can be trained and be kept aspets (this used to happen in early Ire-land), but to herd them was difficult.These ambiguous qualities of the an-imal were definitely considered un-natural if not supernatural (Mallory& Adams 1997: 426). It has been ar-gued also that the special importance

of the pig in Celtic traditions as well as in ancient Greek Eleusinian mysteries

in Celtic lands 207

went back to a North or Central European pre-Indo-European substratum (Hamp1987: 186–87).¹ Pigs were fed on acorns from oaks, sacred in many Celtic tradi-tions, and swineherds associatedwith pigs were often portrayed equal in wisdomwith druids or filid in early Irish and Welsh literatures.

In early medieval Ireland, according to laws, an ordinary farmer (ocaire) wassupposed to have seven pigs, whereas a rich farmer (bóaire) was entitled totwenty. Bóaire metaphorically is called ‘a man of three snouts: the snout of a boarin the ditch which cleaves dishonour (from lack of provender) in every season;the snout of a bacon pig on a hook; the snout of a plough under the ground (?)’ (fertrí srúb: srúb tuirc fo chlud scoltas ainechru(i)ce cach aimsir, srúb tinni for croich,srúb [n-]arathair fo rind) (Binchy 1941: 7–8). He was also entitled to two sowsin farrow (Binchy 1941: 8.196; early eighth century, see Breatnach 2005: 244,Samokhodskaya 2012: 368). Wild sows in farrow look for any kind of shelter in ashadowy place and dig a large den, the bottomofwhich they coverwith branches,and its slopes with grass and leaves. In early medieval Ireland domesticated pigswere kept in covered pigsties, but the sows in farrow followed their instinct andwould dig dens which they covered with different materials. Sows farrowed inspring and usually gave birth to up to nine piglets. The importance of the pig inearly Irish society is symbolically reflected in ‘The Triads of Ireland’ (TrechengBreth Féni), where the uterus of a sow (brú birite) is named as one of the threerenovators of the world (Meyer 1906: § 148 v.l., probably ninth c., see Kelly 1988:284). In an attempt to save all the piglets, the farmer’s wife could take a pigletfrom a sow and hand-rear it on cow’s milk (Thurneysen 1936: 33). The pigletmight be reared as a pet. As it could become troublesome when it matured, itsowners were responsible for its trespasses (Kelly 1997: 81). It should be stressedthat owners usually did not herd their pigs. This task was performed by theirservants or even slaves.

Sows, together with their piglets, stayed in the vicinity of the farm until thebeginning of August when the piglets were fit enough to feed on their own inthe woods. According to the archaeozoological evidence, pigs were slaughteredat a rather young age (18–36 months old) (Kelly 1997: 81–82; Edwards 1996: 58).Pigs from different owners within the same túathwere mixed together in a singleherd (trét) under the care of a swineherd. If pigs stayed in the woods nearby, theycould go back to their sties at night. As we are informed by Hisperica Famina (acollection of obscure Latin poems likely to have been written in seventh centuryIreland), at sunrise ‘the bristly crowd of swine leave [their] huts, / the swine digsandy soil with their snouts, / they eat the solid bracken roots / and taste thegrassy juice’ (hirsutus suum deseruit gurgitia cœtus. / terrestres suffodiunt rostrissablones, / stabiles filicum sorbent radices. / holerosumque gustant sucum). In the

1 The following Celtic terms for ‘pig’ lack IE cognates: *mokku- > Irishmucc f., Welshmoch(collective; sg. mochyn), Breton moc’h (collective; sg. penmoc’h); cf. the Gaulish theonymMoccus.

XVI

Fintan mac Bóchra:Irish synthetic history revisited∗

Introduction. Fintan’s name and his role in Airne Fíngein

Fintan mac Bóchra is one of the characters in Early Irish tradition whoact as the self-sufficient centre of their own mythological situation. Hefigures prominently as a plot-making protagonist in a number of Irish

texts serving as a main character of a particular tale or a plot. Celtic scholarshave extensively discussed Fintan, and have expressed many opposing viewsconcerning him. Starting with themost influential opinions: he has been taken tobe ‘the Otherworld god’ (not surprisingly: O’Rahilly 1946: 319), as a primordialhuman being of Irish tradition (Guyonvarc’h & Le Roux 2005: 322)¹ or as asynthetic apocryphal being, the product of monastic learning (McCone 1990:199). In my view it would not be sufficient merely to say that he combines allthese features before a proper reassessment of this character.

Let us start with the name, the meaning of which was possibly significant forthe audience at a certain period. T.F. O’Rahilly in his stimulating discussion ofFintan and related matters gives two etymologies of his name—one K. Meyer’sand one of his own. K. Meyer suggested that the name Finten (later Fintan)is derived from common Celtic *Vindo-senos ‘weiss(haarig) und alt’ (throughFind-shen) (Meyer 1912d: 791)² (‘the white ancient’ in O’Rahilly’s interpretation).Meyer considered this name to be a dvandva compound. I have to note that to myknowledge the early Old Irish form Finten does not occur in connection with thecharacter discussed (it also has to be stressed that Finten/Fintan is a well-knownpersonal name in early Christian Ireland). Fintan’s old age (*-senos) semantically

∗ I am grateful to John Carey and Iwan Wmffre for their suggestions and corrections tothis chapter, and especially to Dr Carey’s convincing and strong arguments in favour ofFintan’s synthetic nature. Nevertheless, I am solely responsible for all misrepresentationsand faults left in the text.

1 Guyonvarc’h & Le Roux’s definition of a ‘primordial man’ is important for our followingdiscussion: ‘l’expression s’applique à un ancêtre ou un archetype qui, analogue en celaaux patriarches bibliques, est le premier représentant d’une race, d’un peuple ou d’uneclasse sociale. Les hommes primordiaux … ont permis la transmission du savoir originel’(Guyonvarc’h & Le Roux 2005: 398).

2 The name is likely to be attested in inverted form in the name of the great sow of Welshtradition, Henwen < Senuvindá. The same name occurs several times as that of a man inthe form Henwyn (Bromwich 2006: n. 26: 398).

218 16. Fintan mac Bóchra:

corresponds to his function as the oldest man in Ireland. This etymology iswidely accepted by Celtic scholars. Nevertheless O’Rahilly gives his own variant,noting that Vindo- + sh gives Find in Findabair and *Vindo-senos might havegiven *Findan (*Finnan) rather than Fintan. He derives the name from *Vindo-tenos, “of which the second component may be a form of tene or ten, ‘fire’”(O’Rahilly 1946: 319). O’Rahilly’s arguments were followed by H. Meroney’sremark in his review of J. Vendryes’ edition of Airne Fíngein, when he proposesthe second element of the name tan ‘time’ (Meroney 1953–58: 247; Meroney herefollows a suggestion of D’Arbois de Jubainville; the latter suggested a meaning‘white time’, MacNeill 1981: 33). The white colour of Fintan’s name has strongassociation with the priestly, sacred class in many Indo-European traditions andis associatedwith druids’ and filid’s names in Irishmaterial, see for example: FindFili, Finnachta mac Ollamon, Findoll, Laidcenn (‘snow-head’) (Kalygin 2003: 94–95; DIL s.v. ladg). Moreover the colour has certain associations with vision andknowledge as the Common Celtic nominal base *vindo- ‘white’ derives from IE*ṷeid- ‘to see (clearly), to know’ with nasal infix (Delamarre 2003: 320; Kalygin2002: 110). On the basis of these associations V. Kalygin takes Fintan to be one ofthe numerous personifications and late transformations of an archaic deity Findwho possesses and imposes hidden knowledge (Kalygin 2002: 110). We shall tryto show that the nature of Fintan mac Bóchra is more complex.

Material concerning Fintan in Early Irish literature appears to be divided intoseveral compact substories; although belonging to the same tradition, each ofthese is self-sufficient and functions as a plot on its own. The earliest survivingvariant of his story occurs in the Old Irish tale Airne Fíngein (‘Fíngen’s Night-Watch’), assigned by Vendryes to the ninth or tenth century. Here Fintan figuresas one of the búada (wonders, gifts) attending the birth of the future king ConnCétchathach; even if these two mythological characters are not otherwise associ-ated with each other, all of Fintan’s qualities as a renowned sage and a keeper oftradition are somehow dependant on this event. The tale of Fintan’s wonderful‘transformation’ is related to Fíngen by the fairy woman Rothníam.

I establishedmy edition of the passage on the basis of the four mss. containingthe tale (Book of Fermoy (A), Liber Flavus Fergusiorum (B), D IV 2 (D), and Bookof Lismore (L) and thus it differs from Vendryes’s edition. Later additions to theoriginal text are marked bold.

Irish synthetic history revisited 219

“Ocus cid búaid n-aile, a ben?” or Fingen. “Ní hansa” or in ben. “.i. Finntanmac Bochra maic Ethiar maic Ruaill maic Amda maic Caim maic Nóero ír Día dó, in Rí úasal, conid ard-brithem in chentair im ecna. ⁊ atá i n-amlabrai (.i. nírbó maith a erlabra ce ro boí oca) ón uair ro cúala tonngarna dílenn fri tóib slébe Oilifet, ⁊ sé for Tul Tunne i n-íarthardeisciurt Éirenn.5

Arróegraind a urlabra ⁊ forrálaig co r-rabi i n-a chotlud céin boí in díliuforsin bith, ⁊ atá cen sholabra ó sin ille cosinnocht; ⁊ forralgadh fírinneÉirenn ⁊ a coimhghne ⁊ a fáitsine ⁊ a senchus ⁊ a dligeda córa cusanocht.Fo dháigh is é óenfher fírén forfhácaib in díliu dia héis. Is innocht dorroíded(.i. ro foíded) ón Choimdid spirut saineamail faitsine i r-richtmáeth-óclaíg,10

co n-ecmaing builliu i n-a béolu di gaí gréine, co r-raibe tria chlais a dá

1 cid ] ca D; cidh L. 1 búaid ] buaidh D; .b. L. 1 n-aile ] .ii. D; naili L. 1 a ben ] om. ABL.1 or Fingen ] for FinginA; for Fingin B; or FingeinD; for .f. L. 1 or in ben ] for in ben A; for inbean B; for in ben L. 1 .i. Finntan ] .i. Findtan A; .i. Finntán B; Findtan D; Finntan L. 2 macBochra ]mac Bochru B; mac Bochrai D. 2 maic Ethiar . . . Nóe ] om. DL. 2 Nóe ]Noe A.3 ro ír ] ro fir AB; ro ir D. 3 Día dó ] om. ABL. 3 Rí ] ri BL. 3 úasal ] huasal A; huasul B.3 conid ] om. D; conadh L. 3 ard-brithem ] ardbrithemh B; airdbreathem D; airdbreithemhL. 3 in chentair im ecna ] in centar im ecna A; ín cenntar im ecna B; eccna in chentair D;an cenntair im ecna L. 3 ⁊ atá ] ata AB; ⁊ ita D; ár L. 3–4 i n-amlabrai ] ind amlabrai A;i n-amlabra D; om. L. 4 nírbó . . . oca ] om. BD. 4 nírbó ] nir A. 4 erlabra ] herlabra A.4 ce ro ] gia ro L; ita a n-amlabra, add. L. 4 ón uair ] ond uair B. 4 ro cúala ] rochuala BL;atchualaidh D. 4 tonngar ] tondgur A; todgur B. 5 na dílenn ] nan dileind B; na dilindD; na dilinn L. 5 tóib ] toeb A; taebh DL. 5 slébe ] slebhe A; slebe B; sleibi D; sl-i L.5Oilifet ]OlofetAB; OilefetD. 5 sé ] seissium feinD. 5 for Tul ] ic tulAB. 5Tunne ] tunneiB; tuindi D; tuinne L. 5 i n-íarthardeisciurt ] i nd-iarthardeisciurt A; a n-iarthardeiscertD; i nd-iarthar thuaiscirt L; i n-iarthardesciurt B. 5 Éirenn ] na Herenn DA; na Herend B.6 Arróegraind a urlabra . . . co r-rabi ] is annsin bui D. 6 Arróegraind a urlabra ] arroegl-in tonngharnadh L. 6 forrálaig ] forral- L. 6 co r-rabi ] co raibhi L. 6 i n-a chotlud ] inacotlud A; ina codlud B; ina chodlud D; na codl- L. 6 céin ] cen AB. 6 boí ] bói B; bui L.6 in díliu ] ín diliu A; in dilíu B; in dile D, in dili L. 7 forsin bith ] forsin mbithAL; for bithD. 7–8 atá . . . ⁊ forralgadh . . . cusanocht ] ata sin a socht o sin i leith ⁊ anocht ro hirslaicedha irlabra dho do shlun[d]ud shenchusa Erenn, ar roboi a ndobur ⁊ i ndorcha in senchus singusanocht D. 7 cen ] gen L. 7 sin ] sein A. 7 ille ] allé B. 7 cosinnocht ] cusanocht A;cusinnocht L. 7–8 ⁊ forralgadh . . . cusanocht ] om. AB. 9 Fo dháigh ] fo diaid AB. 9 isé ] iss e sin D; iss e A. 9 óenfher ] enfher D; æinfher L; oenfer A; oenfear B. 9 fírén ] add.D. 9 forfhácaib ] forfhacuib A; foracaib B; forfaccaib D; forfacuib L. 9 in díliu ] in dileD; dili L. 9 dia héis ] dia hes A; i n-Erinn D. 9 Is innocht ] cona[d] innocht D; is anochtAL. 9–10 dorroíded . . . foíded ] dorroided .i. dofudedA; dorroided .i. ro foideid B; rofuidhedhL; rofaidhedh D. 10 ón Choimdid ] om. D; on Coimdedh A; on Coimdid L. 10 spirut ] inspiratA; in spirut B; sbirutD; spirut L. 10 saineamail faitsine ] Samueil fathaAB; saineamailfaisdineD; shaineam-fhathacda L. 10 i r-richtmáeth-óclaíg ] i r-richt oclaigA; i r-richt oclaidB; i richt mhaethoglaidh D; i richd oclaigh L. 11 n-ecmaing ] n-ecmhoing A; n-ecmoing B;n-eacmuing D. 11 builliu ] buliu B; om. D; builli L. 11 i n-a béolu ] i n-a bheolu LA. 11 digaí ] dia gai AB; di ghai DL. 11 co r-raibe ] corraba AB; curaibhi L. 11 tria chlais ] tria claisABL; tre chlaisD. 11–220.12 a dáchúlad ] a chúladA; a da culaB; a chuilD; a dha chuladh L.

XVII

BibliographyAbbreviations are taken from the revised electronic Dictionary of the Irish Language

(www.dil.ie) apart from the list belowALI

Atkinson, R. et al. (eds): Ancient laws of Ireland, 6 vols, (Dublin / London: 1865–1901; reprin-ted Buffalo, NY: 2000).

Biblioteka 1997a:Лихачев, Д.С.; Дмитриев, Л.А.; Алексеев, А.А. & Понырко, Н.В. [Likhachev, D.S.;Dmitriev, L.A.; Alekseev, A.A. & Ponyrko, N.V.] (eds) Библиотека литературы ДревнейРуси [Biblioteka literatury Drevney Rusi – The Library of Old Russian Literature] Т. 1: XI–XIIвека, [Vol. 1: 11–12th centuries], (Санкт-Петербург [Saint Petersburg]: 1997).

Biblioteka 1997b:Лихачев, Д.С.; Дмитриев, Л.А.; Алексеев, А.А. & Понырко, Н.В. [Likhachev, D.S.;Dmitriev, L.A.; Alekseev, A.A. & Ponyrko, N.V.] (eds): Библиотека литературы ДревнейРуси [Biblioteka literatury Drevney Rusi –The Library of Old Russian Literature] Том 4 [Vol. 4],(Санкт-Петербург [Saint Petersburg]: 1997).

Byliny 2003:Былины: в 25 т. Т. 3: Былины Мезени: Север Европейской России [Byliny: v 25 t. T. 3: BylinyMezeni: Sever Evropeyskoy Rossii – Byliny: in 25 volumes. Vol. 3. Byliny of the Mezen: NorthEuropean Russia]. (Санкт-Петербург [Saint-Petersburg]: 2003).

Catalogue RIA:Catalogue of Irish manuscripts in the Royal Irish Academy, (Dublin: 1926–30).

CIHBinchy, D.A. (ed): Corpus iuris Hibernici, 6 vols, Introductory Matter, (Dublin: 1978).

CILCorpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.

CMLCath Maige Léna.

DILDictionary of the Irish language (and Contributions to a dictionary of the Irish language).(Dublin: 1913–75; compact edition 1983).

Encyclopedia 1995:Энциклопедия «Слова о полку Игореве». Т. 3, [Encyclopedia “Slova o polku Igoreve”. T. 3 –The Encyclopedia of ‘The Tale of Igor’s Campaign’], (Санкт-Петербург [Saint Petersburg]:1995).

Germanies:‘Germanies’, L’Année épigraphique 1977 (1981), 141–54.

Golubinaya kniga 1991:Голубиная книга: Русские духовные стихи XI – XIX вв.: [Golubinaya kniga: Russkieduhovnye stihi XI-XIX vv. – The Book of the Dove: Russian Spiritual Verses 11–19th centuries],(Москва [Moscow]: 1991).

HDGPHistorical Dictionary of Gaelic Placenames. Fasc. 1 (Names in A-), ed. by ÓRiain, P.;ÓMurchadha, D. & Murray, K. Irish Texts Society, (London: 2003).

LEIA:Vendryes, J.; Bachellery, E. & Lambert, P.-Y.: Lexique étymologique de l’irlandais ancien.,(Dublin / Paris: 1959–)

238 Bibliography

CMLCath Maige Léna.

LL:Lebor Laignech – Book of Leinster.Best, R.I.; Bergin, O.; O’Brien, M.A. & O’Sullivan, A. (eds): The Book of Leinster, formerlyLebar na Nuachongbala, 6 vols, (Dublin: 1954–1983).

LU :Lebur na hUidhre – Book of the Dun Cow.Best, R.I. & Bergin, O. (eds): Lebor na hUidhre – Book of the Dun Cow, (Dublin: 1929 [reprin-ted: 1953, 1970, 1992]).

Patrologia Syriaca 1926:Patrologia Syriaca. P. 1, T. III, (Paris: 1926).

Povest 1910:Повесть временных лет по Лаврентьевскому списку [Povest’ vremennykh let poLavrent’yevskomu spisku – The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian Text], (Санкт-Петербург [Saint Petersburg]: 1910)

Viṣṇu Purana 1972:Viṣṇu Purana with commentary of Śrīdhara. (Calcutta: 1972).

Afanasiev 1936–1940:Афанасьев, А.Н. [Afanasiev, A.N.] (ed): Народные русские сказки [Narodnyye russkiyyeskazki – Russian folk tales], т. I–III. (Ленинград [Leningrad]: 1936–1940).

Ahlqvist 1990:Ahlqvist, A.: ‘Paragraph 16 of Audacht Morainn: Linguistic Theory and Philological Evid-ence’, in: Fisiak 1990: 1—10.

Albedil 2006:Альбедиль, М.Ф. [Albedil, M.F.]: ,Индуизм: миф как парадигма смыслов‘ [Induism: mifkak paradigma smyslov – Hinduism: myth as a paradigm of senses], in: Zaharyin et al.2006: 231–246.

Alexandrova 2010:Alexandrova, N.: ‘Legends of Chthonic Deities and Buddhist Historical Narrative of AncientIndia’, in: Mac Mathúna et al. 2010: 87–112.

Anderson 1991:Anderson, A.O. & M.O. (eds): Adomnán’s Life of Columba, (Oxford: ²1991).

Anscombe 1908:Anscombe, A.: ‘The Langobardic Origins of St Sechnall’, Ériu 4, 1908, 74–90.

Arbois De Jubainville 1899:Arbois De Jubainville, Henri d’: Cours de littérature celtique. Tome 6: La civilisation des celteset celle de l’épopée homérique, (Paris: 1899).

Arbuthnot 2005:Arbuthnot, S. (ed): Cóir Anmann: A late Middle Irish Treatise on Personal Names, Part 1. IrishTexts Society LIX, (London: 2005).

Arbuthnot 2007:Arbuthnot, S. (ed): Cóir Anmann: A Late Middle Irish Treatise on Personal Names, Part 2, IrishTexts Society LX, (Dublin: 2007).

Atkinson 1880: Atkinson, R. (ed): Thee Book of Leinster, sometime called the Book of Glend-alough, a collection of pieces (prose and verse) in the Irish language, compiled, in part, aboutthe middle of the twelfth century, (Dublin: 1880).

Augustinus [Hibernicus] 1845:Augustinus [Hibernicus]: ‘De mirabilibus Sanctae Scripturae’, in: Migne 1845: 2149–2200.

Bibliography 239

Bachelard 1990:Bachelard, G.: L’air et les songes, (Paris: 1990).

Bakhtin 1992:Bakhtin, M.M.: The Dialogic Imagination, (Austin: 1992).

Balashov & Novichkova 2001:Балашов, Д.М. & Новичкова, Т.А. [Balashov, D.M. & Novichkova, T.A.] (eds): Русскийбылинный эпос [Russkiy bylinnyy epos – The Russian Epos of the Byliny], Былины: в 25 т. Т.1. Былины Печоры: Север Европейской России [Byliny. Vol. I. Byliny of the Pechora: NorthEuropean Russia]. (Санкт-Петербург; Mосква [Saint Petersburg; Moscow]: 2001).

Barney et al. 2006:Barney, S.A.; Lewis, W.J.; Beach J.A. & Berghof, O. (eds): The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville,(Cambridge: 2006).

Baudrillard 1993:Baudrillard, J.: Symbolic Exchange and Death, (London: 1993).

Benveniste 1973:Benveniste, E.: Indo-European Language and Society, (London.: 1973).

Bergin & Best 1938:Bergin, O. & Best, R.I. (eds): ‘Tochmarc Étaíne’, Ériu 12, 1938, 137–96.

Bergin 1910:Bergin, O. J. (ed): ‘The Harrowing of Hell’, Ériu 4, 1910, 112–119.

Bergin et al. 1907:Bergin, O.J.; Best, R.I.; Meyer, K. & O’Keeffe, J.G. (eds): Anecdota from Irish Manuscripts, Vol.I (Halle a. S., Dublin: 1907).

Bergin et al. 1908:Bergin, O.J.; Best, R.I.; Meyer, K. & O’Keeffe, J.G. (eds): Anecdota from Irish Manuscripts, Vol.II (Halle a. S., Dublin: 1908).

Bergin et al. 1912:Bergin, O.J.; Best, R.I.; Meyer, K. & O’Keeffe, J.G. (eds): Anecdota from Irish Manuscripts, Vol.IV (Halle a. S.: 1912; reprinted Felinfach: 1994).

Best & Lawlor 1931:Best, R.I. & Lawlor, H.J. (eds): The Martyrology of Tallaght from the Book of Leinster and MS.5100–4 in the Royal Library, Brussels, Henry Bradshaw Society 68 (London: 1931).

Best & O’Brien 1957:Best, R.I. & O’Brien, M.A. (eds): The Book of Leinster formerly Lebar na Nuachongbala, vol.3, (Dublin: 1957).

Best & O’Brien 1965:Best, R.I. & O’Brien, M.A. (eds): The Book of Leinster formerly Lebar na Nuachongbala, vol.4, (Dublin: 1965).

Best & O’Brien 1967:Best, R. I. & O’Brien, M.A. (eds): The Book of Leinster formerly Lebar na Nuachongbala, vol.5, (Dublin: 1967).

Best 1905:Best, R.I. (ed): ‘The Tragic Death of Cúrói mac Dári’, Ériu 2, 1905, 18–35.

Best 1907:Best, R.I. (ed): ‘The Adventures of Art son of Conn, and the Courtship of Delbchæm’, Ériu 3,1907, 149–173.

Best 1910:Best, R.I. (ed): ‘The Settling of the Manor of Tara’, Ériu 4, 1910, 121–72.

Best 1916:Best, R.I.: ‘Prognostications from the raven and the wren’, Ériu 8, 1916, 120–126.

Personal Names and EthnonymsAchilles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177Adam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60–61, 140, 193, 230, 233Aditi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Áed (king of Connachta) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Áed (king of Muscraige) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214Áed Dub (king of Bréifne) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97áes síde . . . . . . . . . . 17, 27, 30–31, 33, 37, 42, 85, 109–111,

143–144, 149, 157, 167, 171, 210Ailill . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100–101, 117, 137, 145, 187, 194, 208Ailill Aullom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Ailill Ólum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Aillén . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Aillinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Aine Áine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 39, 100–101, 103, 109Amairgen Glúngel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Ambigatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 113Amorgen . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–30, 39, 59–60, 176, 181, 235Amorgen Glúnmár . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 39Annitas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Antoninus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Araide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 118Aranda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227Aranda (Arunta) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227Arawn (king of Annwfn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 185, 211Argantorota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Arianrhod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 211–212Arthurian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 212Aryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 53Aryans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Asal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 55, 132–133, 138–142, 154Asal Doir Domblais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 55, 141Assal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132, 142, 156, 164–165auctores

Adomnán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73, 223–224Aphrahat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Augustine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192–193Augustinus [Hibernicus] . . . . . . . . . 7, 184, 192, 222Bacchylides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Bede . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164Caesar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Callimachus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Cináed úa Hartacáin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Diodorus of Sicily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195Druim Suíthe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70–71, 76, 178Find Fili macc Rossa Rand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152Gilla na Naem Ó Duind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 78, 94Giraldus Cambrensis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230Gregory the Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 223Hanmer, Meredith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230, 236Heraclitus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190Isidore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 177–180, 231Keating, Geoffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232, 236Livy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 113

Lucian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225Lughaidh Ó Cléirigh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118Máel Muru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 119Marinus of Tyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197–198Muirchú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208Nicander of Colophon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177Orosius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Ovid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Philemon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198Pindar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Pliny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Porphyry of Tyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Ptolemy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 197–203Pythagoras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184Strabo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104, 205Tacitus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 123Taliesin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 183, 194, 224, 231Tertullian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177Thierry of Chartres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191Tírechán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 177, 202, 208Turibius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Virgil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Aurelius Ambrosius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Badb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110; see also BodbBaile Binnbérlach mac Búain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Báine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37–40Balor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158Banba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 70, 76, 101, 109, 119, 153, 234Bandea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Becnia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Bedwyr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Belgae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Bendigeidfran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167Beowulf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiBerba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Berbae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201–202Bicne (Bicni) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–81, 92, 95Bith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 234, 236Bóand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198–202Bochra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219–221Bodb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 35–36, 106, 109–111, 171, 185,

193, 195, 210, 212–213; see also BadbBodb Derg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 110–111Bogomil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Bona Dea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Boruo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199Borvobo(v)indoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 201Boudicca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115Боянъ Boyan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–8, 10–11, 13Brea son of Belgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 35–36Brennus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195Bresal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Cáer Ibormeith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 87

272 Index

Cailb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169, 171–172Caillín . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177Caílte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181, 226Cairpre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–86, 88, 94–95, 97Cairpre Lifechair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81–83, 94, 97Cass Cétchuimnech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 114Cass Cétcoimgneech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 114Cathaír Már . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Cathaír Mór . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Cathal mac Finguine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Cathbad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Catherine II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Cei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Cenn Faelad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224Cerball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 117Ces(s)arnn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Cessair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201, 234, 236чудь белоглазая Chud’ beloglazaya . . . . . . . . . 40–42Cichuil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 172Clanna Dedad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 26Claudius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197–198Coll son of Collvrewy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212Conaing Bec-eclach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Conaire Mór . . . . . . . 84, 87, 106, 108–110, 122–123, 126,

155–161, 163–174, 189, 209–210Conall Corc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214–215Conchobar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 101, 188–189Cond Crínna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 118Condla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Condlai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Conn Cétchathach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x, 33, 45, 47–48,

53, 87, 99, 101–102, 104, 113–114, 116–120, 122, 124,126–127, 141, 175, 208, 218, 231

Connachta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 53, 97, 110, 118, 178, 192Contobouiouindillus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199Corán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 107, 109–111Cormac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 83, 87, 91, 94,

123, 126, 137, 145, 147, 159, 165, 176, 178, 191, 222Cormac mac Airt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 94, 126Cormac mac Fáeláin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176Cú Chaille . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Cú Chongelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Cú Chulainn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix, 4, 16, 24–25,

31–32, 88–89, 164–165, 184, 188–189, 191Cú Corb (king of Leinster) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Cú Roí . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15–26, 61, 101Cuchuimne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Cuirirán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214Culhwch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212, 230

Da Coca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 159, 165, 175Da Derga . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 106, 122, 124, 142, 152, 155,

157, 159–161, 163, 165–173, 175, 209–210Dagán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37–39Dagda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29–30, 33, 37–39, 72, 110, 185Dagon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Ddaire m. Fiachna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 200Dallwyr Dallben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212Dalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134–135, 149–151Damona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Danes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Dechtire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88, 188–189Delilah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 26Détscorach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Diana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Diarmait mac Cerbaill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59–60Díl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Dond Dessa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167Donn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 194, 210Dreco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150Drycthelm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164Drystan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Dub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97, 210Dubthach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209Duirdriu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Éber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29–30Ecet Salach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228Éilimm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Eochaid Airem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192Eochaid Órainech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Eochaid Éces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108Eochaid Feidlech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Eochaid m. Erc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Eochaid m. Luchta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101–102, 109Éogabal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 55, 100, 106Eógan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 118Eóganachta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 101Eóganachta Chaisil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Érainn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 102Ercenn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225–226Érémon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Ériu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 95, 119, 201Estiu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Étaín . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 184, 190–194Étaín Echraidhe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194Ethiar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219–220

Fáelán Mac Gabhann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130Febul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–2, 100Feidlimid Rechtmar (Rechtaid) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 116Féni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 113, 161, 176, 207Fer Caille . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 169–173, 210Fer Fí . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 55, 100, 106, 109, 111, 134–135,

138, 146–149, 153–154Fergus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 113–114, 176–179Find Fili . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152, 218Findabair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218Findoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218Fíngen . . . . x, 34, 45–47, 49, 61, 67, 87, 99–111, 113–114,

116, 127, 131, 199, 218, 220Fíngen mac Áedo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103–104Fíngen mac Luchta . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 99, 101, 104–105Finnachta mac Ollamon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218Fintan mac Bóchra . . . . . . . . ix, 10, 58, 60–61, 217–218,

220, 222, 224, 226, 228, 230, 232, 234–236Fir Bolg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235Fir Domnann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153Fir Ḟailgi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Flann Sinna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Personal Names and Ethnonyms 273

Flesc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Fomoire . . . . . . . . . . 19, 33–34, 37–38, 102, 143–144, 158Fortrēn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Fortuna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Franks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Friuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212–213Fróech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Fúamnach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Gaels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153, 234Gálióin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 91Goibniu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Goliath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158Goll Essa Rúaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230, 235Grendel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Grici . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Gruibne Éices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214Guaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178, 213–214Gulban Glass son of Gráci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Gun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231Gwydion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Hadrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Hercules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225Hittite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 122Huccan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Illann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234Ilya of Murom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21–25Indra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 23, 25, 44, 53, 65, 164, 187Ingcél . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 172Ίούερνοι . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Irard Mac Coise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 94Íth m. Bregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Jesus Christ (Mac Maire) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65, 69,72–75, 93, 221

King David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 221King of Éle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214King Saul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222King Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 126Komi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41–42

Ladra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234Lagin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Laidcenn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218Lé Fer Flaith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 167, 169Lemovices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Leo Lamfata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Lesc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Lleu Skilful Hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Lóegaire Lorc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Lom Laine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Luam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Luchta Lámfhind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Lug . 37–38, 88, 91, 102, 118, 137, 158, 164, 188–190, 194Lugaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Lugair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Lugh 37–38, 88, 91, 102, 118, 137, 158, 164, 188–190, 194Lughaidh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Mac Cécht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 166–168, 172, 202Mac Léti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 113Mac Liac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 94Mael Muire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Manannán mac Lir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164, 185Mandara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 65Mane Andóe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 172Mane Milscothach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172Marban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213–214March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Marcus Aurelius Antoninus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 72–75Math . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Matha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208Meche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Medb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187, 192, 208Mercurius Moccus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Mes Buachalla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159, 161Mes Gegra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Mess-Telmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Mide son of Brath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 55, 79, 95, 142Midir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35–39, 190, 192–193Midlúachair m. Damairne . . . . . 46, 132–135, 144–146,

148–149, 154Mikula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 25Míl of Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Miliuc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208Mongán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 60, 91, 185, 192, 194Mór Muman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103–104Morrígan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35–36Mug Nuadat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 48, 113Mug Ruith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10, 17, 109, 158Muiredach Tírech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Muirgen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 176, 179, 235Myrddin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Namuci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 25Nár m. Fíac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Nár m. Óengusa . . . . . . . . . 46–47, 55, 134–135, 152, 154Nár Túathcháech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 106, 109, 171, 210Nārada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180Nechtan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Néde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159Nemesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Nemglan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 159, 172–173Nenets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Nereus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Niall of the Nine Hostages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158Nindid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Ninión . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159Ninníne Éces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58, 64, 176, 178Noah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 233, 236Núadu Necht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153Núadu Snáma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Ochall Ochne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212Octavius Augustus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Odba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

274 Index

Odras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190Oedipus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 156, 173Óengus Airgthig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152Óengus Mac ind Óc . . . . . 32, 35–36, 38–39, 77, 81–83,

85–88, 98, 192, 195Ogma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37–38, 225Ogmios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225–226Oleg (Grand Prince) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Órainech of Uisnech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115, 117

Partholón . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 231Pathyā Svasti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51patronyms

Adam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Ailill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194Airrda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233Amda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220Auśīnara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Bacdub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185, 212Belgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Beli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Boclachtnae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Brath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Bregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Bóchra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61, 220, 233Cairell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228Collvrewy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212Cormac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 94Crimthann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Damairne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 144Dond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167Dornbuide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 55Dáire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Dór . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141Dôn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Dúnlang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Ecet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228Eithliu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Éogabal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 55, 106Eterscéle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 167Ethiar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 233Eógabal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135Fintan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234Flann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Fíac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Gorynya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Gráci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Ham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 233Íth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Lamech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233Libi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233Luchta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 106Lugaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Manannán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185Mathonwy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Meirchiawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Midir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Morrígain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Míl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-29, 34, 36, 38-40, 42, 185Noah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 233

Núadu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Óengus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 55, 152Pwyll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210Púal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233Ruall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220Smuchaill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185, 212Sétnae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Tallwch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Talmai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231Tuathal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Patroclus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177Pendaran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Pendaran Dyfed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Philip (apostle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Phorkys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Pratardana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Prester John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Proteus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Pryderi son of Pwyll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210–211, 215Pūṣan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51–52Pwyll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 47, 118, 185, 210–211Pythia of Delphi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Rama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180Ravios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16–17Redg Rotbél . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 35–37Rhun son of Beli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 30, 86, 116, 123, 180,

184, 195, 197–198, 202–203, 206Rothníam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 45–46, 49, 99–102, 104,

107, 109–111, 114–116, 131, 218Rucht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212–213

SaintsÁed mac Bricc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Airennán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Bartholomew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231Berach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92, 96–98Brendan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177Brigit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159, 209Caillín . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177Cairnech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Ciarán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177Columba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223Gall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178Gregory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Jerome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231Laisrén (Molaisse) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58, 69, 74Malo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209Moling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209Moninne (Darerca) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227Patrick . . . viii, 5, 30, 73, 177, 181, 202–203, 208–209Ronan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Samson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24–26Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 221–223, 226Santana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 65Satan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150Scáth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139, 148Secundinus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226Sen-Garman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Places and Rivers 275

Sena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Senbecc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31–32Senchán Torpéist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 178–179, 214, 222Senocondus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 118Senunā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Sétanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189Seth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Sétna Secderg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 55, 150Śibi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 55Sinann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Smuchaill m. Bacdub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185, 212Sons of Míl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Sualtam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189Sucatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208Succetus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208Suibhne Geilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103–104, 109, 149, 209Svyatogor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15–18, 20–26, 41Svyatoslav Yaroslavich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Tallwch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Tethna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Three Reds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 160, 167–169, 172Tigernach Tétbuillech (Tétbannach)m. Luchta 101–103Tinnell m. Boclachtnae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Tréfhuilngid Tre-eochair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58–63, 65

Tristan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212Tuán m. Cairell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 228–229, 231, 234Túatha Dé Danann . . . . . . . . 27–29, 32–36, 91, 98, 102,

110, 143, 149, 186, 190, 202Tuathal Teachtmhar . . . . . . . . . 33, 39, 115–117, 119, 123Tyche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Uí Chuinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Uí Neill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 53, 107, 109, 116–118, 122Ulaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17–18, 24, 27–28, 34, 187, 225

Vālmīki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180Vasumanas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Vǝrǝθraγna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 187Veteris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206Vikings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Virgin Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Viṣṇu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 65, 231Vṛtráhan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Vseslav . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Wu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Yayāti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51–55

Zeus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177, 229

Places and RiversAchall (Hill of Skreen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 116, 152Achill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229–230, 234–235Aircthech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152Alend (Knockaulin) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 136Alesia (battle of) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197Annwfn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 185, 210–211Co. Armagh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227Archangel (city) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Ard Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180Ardagh Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Armagh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 227Armorica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179Asia (central) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Asia Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Assaroe (Ess Ruaid) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229–230Áth Clíath (Dublin) . . . . . 77, 87, 156–159, 165–167, 172Áth Féine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Ballyshannon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229Bandea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Bann (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164, 202Barrow (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201–202Bend Codail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Bend Étair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 157, 172Bend Gulbain Guirt maicc Ungairb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Berbae; see Barrow (river)Boa Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Bourbonne-les-Bains (Dép. Haute-Marne) . . . . . . . 199Βουουίνδα . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198–199Boyne (river) . . . 31, 39, 114, 126, 146, 164–165, 198–201,

203Boyne valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 39, 199Brega . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 35–36, 157, 160, 164–165Bréifne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Brí Leith (Ardagh Hill) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 38Bristol bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212Britain . . . . . . . . . . . . vii, 19, 168, 172, 191, 198, 209–212Brittany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180, 209Brú Ruair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38–39Bruig na Bóinne . . . . . . . . . 32–33, 72, 85, 165, 188, 199;

see also Boyne valleyBush (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Co. Carlow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Carnes East and West (Co. Meath) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165Carpathian Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Cashel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 103, 214Cathair Con Roí (Caherconree) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Ceilbe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127, 129Cern(a)e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 160, 165–166, 170Clúain Cannain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Cnoc Áine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 100–101, 109Cnoc Báine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37–40Cnogba (Knowth) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 199;

see also Bruig na BóinneConnacht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 47, 118, 185, 187, 212–213

276 Index

Cornwall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212Crete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229Crích Ele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Cronn (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Crúachain Aí (Crúachu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 37, 165, 186Cruachán Aigli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Cúailnge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 24, 176, 187, 208Cúalu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 163, 166, 168–169Czech lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Dan (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Delphi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 195Devaloka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 65Dingle Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Dodder (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166Co. Donegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 146Druim Fíngin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 99–101, 104, 106, 109Dubad (Dowth) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 199;

see also Bruig na BóinneDulane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Dún Brain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9–10, 12Dún Tulcha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230, 233–235Dundalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Dungarvan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 99Dunmore East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Dyfed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211, 215

Eastern Munster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 99, 101, 150–151Eastern world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18–19, 180Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Eiscir Ríadai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Éle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214Emain Macha . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 88, 118, 137, 165, 170, 205Emlyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Erris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152Eryri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Eryrys (Eryres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Euffigneix (Dep. Haute Marne) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii, x, 68, 179–180, 191, 205

Febul (kingdom of) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–2, 100Fermoy . . . . . 45, 47, 99, 103, 105, 115, 141, 218, 231, 233Fid Frosmuine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–82, 92–93Fid nGaibli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92–93Finn (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Fourknocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Gabar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Galway Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Garad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Garden of Eden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Gaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 17–18, 57, 110, 198–199, 205Glendomuin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Glenn Bolcáin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 109Gomorrah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Gwales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167Gwern Abwy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230Gwynedd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Harlech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167Hill of Skreen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Hill of Uisnech 57, 59–60, 95, 105–107, 109, 115, 117–118,156, 163, 170, 173

Íarmumu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 55, 151, 154India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 55, 158, 164, 179Ἰουερνία . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197Ίουερνίς . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Irarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76–80, 82–84, 86, 88–98Irluachair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 109Irrus Domnann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 131, 152–154Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221–222Jor (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Karelia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Kenmare Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235Co. Kerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 103, 109, 235Kidron Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221Killarney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Knockainy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 99

La Tène (Kanton Neuchâtel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Lachtmaige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Co. Laois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Latium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179Lebanon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60–61Leinster . . 27, 33, 37, 48, 57, 69, 76, 83, 94, 101–102, 113,

116–117, 136, 153, 166, 174, 176Leth Cuinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 102Leth Moga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Lethglenn (Old Leighlin) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 74Lezoux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115Co. Limerick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 99Limerick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Linn Sailech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Liffey (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 156, 158, 174Llyn Llyw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230Loch Léin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125Loch Ló . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 159Co. Longford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Co. Louth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Lough Foyle (Loch Febuil) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–2, 100

Mag Aí . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Mag Da Cheó . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 159Mag Dá Gési . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Mag Fuindsidi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Mag Ítha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Mag Léna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Mag Mucrima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Mag Mugna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74, 190Mag Sainb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165Mag Tuired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 36Mandara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 65Co.Mayo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97, 152Co.Meath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 161, 165Mediterranean Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Meru (mountain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164Mezen (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Places and Rivers 277

Mide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 55, 79, 95, 142Co.Monaghan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Mons Olivet (Mount of Olives) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221–222Moscow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 9, 42Mount Ida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229Mount Zion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Mullenoran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Mullingar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Multyfarnham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Munster . . . 8, 16–17, 20, 26, 45, 47, 55, 59, 99–103, 106,

109–110, 118, 151, 156, 163, 185, 212–215, 230, 235Muscraige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Navan Fort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Nemi wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Nemthend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150North Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Novgorod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 42

Ories (Oris) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Pinega (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Port Lairge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Pratardana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Ráith Cairpri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81–82Rathin (Rathon Diarmait) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96–97Ravios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16–17Rhône valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Co. Roscommon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Ros Cré . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 21

Santana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 65Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix, 144, 180, 214Scythia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18–19Segais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31–32, 190Σήνους . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Senunā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Senus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Shannon (river) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202–203Síd Aircheltrai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37–38Síd Boidb (Síd ar Femen) . . . . . . . . . 17, 35, 106, 109–111Síd Cerna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165Síd Cliach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 99–101, 111Síd Froích . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Síd in Broga (Newgrange) . . . . . . . . . . 27, 31–33, 37–40,

165, 199; see also Bruig na BóinneSíd Leithet Lachtmaige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 40Síd Nechtain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Síd Rodrubán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Slíab Betha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236Slíab Bladma (Slieve Bloom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Slíab Edlicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 36Slíab Mis (Slieve Mish) . . . . . . . 17, 20–21, 106, 109, 208Slíab Oilifet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221Slíab Smóil meic Eidlicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35–36Slige As(s)ail . . . . . . . . . . 46, 155–156, 160–161, 163, 170Slige Chúalann 46, 142, 148, 155–161, 163, 166, 168–170,

172–174Slige Dala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 129, 149–151, 153, 160Slige Midlúachra . . 46, 144–146, 148, 155, 157, 160–161,

165–166, 170Slige Mór . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 152, 160Snám Dá Én . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 89Sodom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 28, 62, 67–68, 234Srúb Brain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 128–129, 146Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Tech Airennáin (Tyfarnham) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 96Tech Moling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209Temair Breg (Tara) . . . . . . . . . . 33, 45–49, 58–61, 67, 76,

79, 87, 94–95, 99–100, 106–107, 109, 111, 114–117, 119,122, 126, 133, 135–139, 141, 144, 146–147, 153, 155–165,167–168, 170, 172–174, 209

Temair Lúachra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 220Temple Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221Termonbarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Co. Tipperary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Tralee Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Tuadmumu (North Munster) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163Túag Inbir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164Tuilen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Tul Tuinde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 227–228, 230, 235Co. Tyrone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Ulster . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 25, 27, 30, 37, 47, 59, 87, 90, 118,165, 178, 185, 188–189, 192, 195, 205, 214, 228, 230Umall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 135Urmumu (Eastern Munster) . . . . . . . . . . . . 135, 150–151Utrecht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 201

Ventry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Vercelli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140–141

Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180, 211–212, 215Waterford Harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

well of Garad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Co.Westmeath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 79West Munster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 20, 55, 235Co.Wicklow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Texts and ManuscriptsAccount of Finn’s Retinue see Airem muinteri FinnAdventures of Connla see Echtrae ChonnlaiAdventures of Nera see Echtra Nerai

Acallam na Senórach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181, 227Aided Con Roí (ACR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 21, 24Aided Cuanach meic Cailchine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Airem muinteri Finn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Airne Fíngein (AF) . x, 34, 36–38, 44–49, 52–55, 61–63,

65, 67, 87, 89–90, 94, 98–104, 106–111, 113–114, 116–127, 129, 131, 136–137, 139, 141–142, 144, 146–148, 151–155, 168–169, 175, 199–200, 217–218, 220–223, 225–226, 228–229, 231–235

Aislinge Óenguso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85–87, 195Altrom tige dá medar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Annals

Annals of the Four Masters ([A]FM) . . . 79, 94, 102Annals of Tigernach (ATig.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Annals of Ulster (AU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 71, 165Chronicum Scotorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Fragmentary Annlas of Ireland (FA) . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Arthurian cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212Audacht Moraind (AM) . . . . . . . . . . . . 119–123, 125–126

Battle of Mag Léna see Cath Maige LénaBattle of Mag Rath see Cath Maighe RathBattle of the Trees see Kat GodeuBirth of Cormac see Geneamuin ChormaicBook of the Conquest of Ireland see Lebor Gabála ÉrennBranched purchase see Críth GablachBranwen, daughter of Lyr see Mabinogi: Branwen

uerch LyrBricriu’s Feast see Fled Bricrend

[Scél] Baile Binnbérlaig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Baile Chuinn Chétchathaig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 99Baile in Scáil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 79, 90, 113, 117–118Bretha Déin Chécht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224, 227Bretha Étgid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 145Bruiden Da Choca (BDC) . . . . . . . 87, 159, 163, 165, 175Buile Shuibhne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 109, 209

Cattle-raid of Cuailnge see Táin Bó CuailngeChant of long life see Cétnad n-AíseColloquy of the Elders see Acallam na SenórachConception of Cú Chulainn see Compert Con CulainnContention of Poets see Iomarbhagh na bhFileadhCormac’s Glossary see Sanas Cormaic

Cath Maige Léna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 113Cath Maighe Rath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224Cath Muige Tuired Cunga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Cethri arda in domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161, 233–236Cétnad n-Aíse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Cóir Anmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 48, 108, 114, 178, 222Compert Con Culainn (CCC) . . . . 88–89, 184, 188, 191Conn’s cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Críth Gablach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163, 224

Da Coca’s Hostel see Bruiden Da ChocaDeer’s Cry see Fáeth fiadaDialogue of Bran’s Druid and Febul’s Prophetess above

Loch Febuil see Immacallam in druad Brain ocusinna banḟátho Febuil hóas Loch Ḟebuil

Dream of Óengus see Aislinge ÓengusoDrunkenness of the Ulaid see Mesca Ulad

De chophur in dá muccida . . . . . . 88, 110, 184, 191–192,208, 212

De duodecim abusivis saeculi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122De gabáil in t-ṡída . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 185De shíl Chonairi Móir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 174Do Fhallsigud Tána Bó Cúailnge . . . . 175–177, 179, 181Dindṡenchas . . . . . . . . . ix, 19, 33, 36, 44–46, 56, 59–60,

62, 64, 69, 71, 73–102, 104, 109, 111, 125, 127, 129–131,133, 135–137, 139, 141–155, 164, 171, 175–176, 178, 181,185, 190, 199–203, 208, 212, 220, 234–236

Ever-new Tongue see In Tenga Bithnua

Echtra Fergusa maic Léti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Echtra Nerai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189Echtrae Chonnlai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 98Esnada Tige Buchet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Feast at the House of Conán see Feis Tighe ChonáinFinding of the Táin see Do Fhallsigud Tána Bó

CúailngeFíngen’s Nightwatch / Vigil see Airne FíngeinFirst Battle of Moytura see Cath Muige Tuired CungaFitness of Names see Cóir AnmannFosterage of the House of Two Vessels see Altrom tige

dá medarFour Cardinal Points of the World see Cethri arda in

domainFrenzy of Conn of the Hundred Battles see Baile Chuinn

Chétchathaig

Fáeth fiada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Feis Tighe Chonáin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171Fenian cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 181Finn cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Fís Adomnán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Fled Bricrend (FB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 18–21, 24Forbuis Druim Damhghaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10

Geneamuin Chormaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Hundred Chapters see Stoglav

Instructions of Cormac see Tecosca Cormaic

Immacallam in druad Brain ocus inna banḟátho Febuilhóas Loch Ḟebuil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 100

Immram Brain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 185, 192In Tenga Bithnua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62–64Iomarbhagh na bhFileadh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Judgements of Dían Cécht see Bretha Déin Chécht

Texts and Manuscripts 279

Judgements of irresponsible acts see Bretha Étgid

Kat Godeu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Lebor Gabála Érenn (LGÉ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,48, 113, 116, 171, 221, 227–228, 230, 234

ManuscriptsBibliothèque de Rennes Métropole

MS. 598 (Rennes Dindṡenchas) . . . . . . 77–78, 96,129, 152, 200–201

Bodleian Library, OxfordRawl(inson) B 502 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 117

British Library, LondonAdd(itional) 30512 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233Eg(erton) 1782 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 188, 192–194Harl(ey) 5280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Chatsworth House Library, DerbyshireBook of Lismore . . . . . . . 47, 55, 99, 105, 108, 115,

121, 123, 126–127, 141, 147, 154, 218, 232Leabhar Mhic Cárthaigh Riabhaigh;

see Book of LismoreCín Dromma Snechta . . . . . . 2, 23, 29, 155, 159, 188National Library of Ireland

Gaelic Ms. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 39Royal Irish Academy

B III 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 152Book of Ballymote (23 P 12) 32, 108, 129–130, 152Book of Fermoy (23 E 29) . . . 45, 47, 99, 103, 105,

115, 141, 218, 231, 233Book of Lecan (23 P 12) . . 69, 75, 78, 93, 129, 152Book of Uí Maine (D II 1) . . . . . . . . . 129–130, 152D II 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129D IV 2 . . . . . . . 37, 47, 61, 94, 99, 105, 108, 115–117,

121, 125, 127, 141, 151, 154, 157, 180, 218, 235Lebor na hUidre (23 E 25) . . 10, 30–32, 39, 60, 73,

107, 155, 161, 167–168, 188, 193–194, 210,233–236

Liber Flavus Fergusiorum (23O 48 a-b) . . . . . 47,105, 115, 141, 218, 233

Trinity College DublinBook of Leinster (H 2. 18 / MS. 1339) . . . . . 27–29,

36–37,39, 47, 53, 69–70, 73, 78, 82–84, 86–89,92, 94, 96, 100–101, 118, 127, 149, 171, 176,186, 193, 202, 228

H 3. 18 (MS. 1337) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83–84, 108, 153H 3. 3 (MS. 1322) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 152H 4. 22 (MS. 1363) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Yellow Book of Lecan (H 2. 16 / MS. 1318) 69–70,

72, 155Math son of Mathonwy see Math uab Mathonwy

MabinogiBranwen uerch Lyr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167Math uab Mathonwy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211Pwyll penn Annwvyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 118, 185

Mahābhārata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53–56, 67, 187Mesca Ulad (MU) . . . . . . . . . 17, 27, 29, 32, 34, 36–37, 39Munster cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

On the Descendants of ConaireMór seeDe shíl ChonairiMóir

On the Struggle (?) of the Two Swineherdssee De chophur in dá muccida

On the Taking of the síd see De gabáil in t-ṡídaOn the Twelve Abuses of the World see De duodecim

abusivis saeculi

Panegyric of Cormac see Tesmolad CormaicPhantom’s Frenzy see Baile in ScáilPraising of Sétna Secc see Sogairm Sétnai SiccPsalter of the Verses see Saltair na RannPwyll, Prince of Dyfed see Mabinogi: Pwyll penn

Annwvyn

Saga of Fergus Mac Léti see Echtra Fergusa maic LétiSettling of the Manor / Possessions of Tara see Suidigud

Tellaig TemraSick-Bed of Cú Chulainn see Serglige Con CulainnSiege of Druim Damhghaire see Forbuis Druim Dam-

hghaireSong of Igor’s Campaign see Слово о плъку Игоревѣ,

Slovo o plъku IgoreveSongs of Buchet’s House see Esnada Tige BuchetSuibhne’s Frenzy see Buile Shuibhne

Saltair na Rann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 71Sanas Cormaic (Corm.) 8, 91, 137, 145, 147, 154, 178, 191,

222Scél Mongáin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Scél Tuáin meic Chairell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228–229Scéla na esérgi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Scéla Moṡauluim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137Serglige Con Culainn (SCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Слово о плъку Игоревѣ, Slovo o plъku Igoreve 3, 11Слово Данила Заточеника (СДЗ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Sogairm Sétnai Sicc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129–130Stoglav . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Suidigud Tellaig Temra (STT) . . 57–59, 61–62, 67, 232,

234

Tale of Baile Binnbérlach see [Scél] Baile BinnbérlaigTale of Mongán see Scél MongáinTale of Tuáin meic Chairell see Scél Tuáin meic

ChairellTestament of the Cathaír Már see Timna ChathaírMáirTestament of Morann see Audacht MoraindThe Tidings of the Resurrection see Scéla na esérgiTragic Death of Cuana, son Cailchiné see Aided

Cuanach meic CailchineTragic Death of Cú Roi see Aided Con RoíTriads of Ireland see Trecheng breth FéniTriads of the Island of Britain see Trioedd Ynys Prydein

Táin Bó Cuailnge (TBC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 24, 31,59, 164, 175–181, 184, 187, 193–194, 208, 211–212, 225–226, 235

Tecosca Cormaic (TesC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 124, 126Tesmolad Cormaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123–124, 126Timna Chathaír Máir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 131Tochmarc Emire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165, 188Tochmarc Étaíne (TÉ) . . . . 27, 39, 85, 90, 184, 190–191,

193–195Togail Bruidne Da Derga (TBDD) . . 110, 122–123, 126,

142, 155, 159–161, 163, 165–171, 174, 210

Trecheng breth Féni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161, 176, 207Trioedd Ynys Prydein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 210

Ulster cycle . . . . . . 18, 25, 27, 30, 178, 188, 195, 205, 214

Vision of Adomnán see Fís AdomnánVovage of Bran see Immram Brain

War of the Gaels with the Vikings see Cogadh Gaedhelre Gallaibh

Wasting Sickness of Cúchulainn see Serglige Con Cu-lainn

Wooing of Emer see Tochmarc EmireWooing of Etaín see Tochmarc Étaíne

General IndexAbbot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95–96abundance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124–126, 198

— of fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126— of trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

ādikavi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180alehouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 116, 156angel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii, 24, 60, 63, 70, 73–74, 214animal . . . 6, 43, 66, 90, 163, 165, 191, 194, 205–206, 211,

214–215, 228, 230bat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115, 213bear . . . . . . . . 15, 20, 44–45, 55, 73, 119, 173, 177, 226bee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7–8, 23, 84–85, 87, 89, 158, 161,

169, 187, 230, 234birdmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 169, 172birds with human head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90crow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110, 168cuckoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187dove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180eagle . . . . . . . . . . . . 6–8, 10, 78, 187, 212, 230, 234falcon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187feather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7–8, 158

dress made of feathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158hawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 228–231, 234–235

Hawk of Achill . . . . . . . . . . 229–230, 234–235hen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19nightingale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7–8raven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 90swan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 161, 187, 192Tortha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–82, 89, 98Tíagu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–81, 89, 98wren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 90

butterfly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 191–192camel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187caterpillar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 124, 211

bull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 120, 156–159, 187, 194Dond Cuailnge . . . . . . . . . . . . 137, 168, 194, 210Dub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Finnbennach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187, 194hornless bull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

cow . . . . 12, 19, 24, 91, 124, 126, 187, 198–199, 207white cow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

times of cattleraids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208deerhunter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208buck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187stag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186, 228–229

doggreyhound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211hound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16–17, 165

elephant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187fish . 81, 88, 95–96, 124, 126, 227, 230–232, 234, 236

pike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230salmon

salmon of knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230fly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 10, 191–192fur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149goat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138, 187horse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 138, 187, 208

horsemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214mare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121stallion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

kitten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212lion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187mule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187pet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 206–207pig . . . . . 38, 95, 124, 144, 171–172, 185–186, 205–215

bacon pig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207black pig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171boar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187, 207, 209, 212, 214, 228cooked pig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 206muca for mesruth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213mucca denma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213pigherding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186pigkeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205piglet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144, 147, 207, 209, 211pigsty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207pork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205–206, 210

bacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205ham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

sacrificial pig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172severed pig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210singed pig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210sow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207, 209, 212

dead sow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209great sow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

swine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148, 205, 207–214swineherd . . . . . ix, 110, 148, 171, 177, 184–187,

190, 192–195, 205, 207–215, 229

General Index 281

undying pig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38sandhopper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189serpent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73, 187

ram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187snake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 25, 202–203, 206squirrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6–7tiger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187whale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203wolf-cub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212worm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186–187, 189–193, 229

earthworm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191maggot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191míl bec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188–189small creature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189water-worm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

apocrypha . . . . . . . 26, 38, 60–63, 65, 67–68, 73, 78, 125,180, 217, 233–234

archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii, 17, 31, 42, 140, 161, 184Boyne valley culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Early Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205faunal remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Neolithic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 39, 165, 199passage-graves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

ard-brithem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219, 221aristocracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix, 206Ark of the Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 66, 71, 138, 148, 154army . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 135, 143, 147–148, 154, 211–212asceticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191astronomer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,

astronomical treatise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Banḟáith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2battle . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 6, 34–36, 79, 100, 110, 113, 116, 214

battlefield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 110, 164ben shíde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99, 109betrayal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 46, 100–101birth . x, 45–47, 49, 52, 54, 66–67, 99–102, 107, 109, 111,

114–116, 118–119, 121, 125, 127–128, 133, 136–137, 149,151, 155, 158, 163–164, 168, 175, 184, 186–189, 199–202,207, 212, 218, 220, 227–228, 232–233

blindness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10, 22, 94, 173, 179, 227bóaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207boat of copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19boundary 128–129, 136–137, 140, 145, 147, 159, 166, 169,

171–172bovine

— forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195— nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201— shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

brahman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55broth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157burial mound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32bull-feast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157–158bull-feaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156–159

Carrion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

cauldron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 102, 224cave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41–42, 186, 227–229chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 224–226chaos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 160, 169, 201, 232chariot . . 46, 52–55, 87, 137–138, 147, 156, 158, 163, 208charioteer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 54charm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 91, 133, 142–143, 171, 186Chinese chronicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103χθόνιοι . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229churl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171ciallfhlaith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii, 39, 70–72, 100, 222, 234cloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–7, 9–11, 13, 122cóe (feast) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134, 138, 146–147coffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 25cóicid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 43, 50, 101, 121coimgne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 232comarbae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81–82, 95–98combat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 137, 185, 211–212conflict . vii, 25, 27–28, 34, 42, 48, 88, 97, 102, 109–110,

113, 116, 142, 146, 149, 151, 155, 230coshering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147cosmogony 47, 58, 61–62, 65–66, 118, 121, 194–195, 233cosmography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236cosmology ix–x, 5, 30, 42, 44, 50, 56–57, 62, 65–67, 114,

117, 119, 161, 163, 232cosmos . . . . . . viii, 30, 47, 49, 101, 116, 118, 122–123, 143Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75creature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix–x, 15, 21–25, 32, 34,

41, 70, 72, 84, 87, 98, 148, 151, 158, 186, 189, 191–192,212–213, 228, 230–231, 234; see also monster

Crucifixion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Cuilmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176, 178–180curad-mír . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206cycle of Conaire Mór . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Daughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 83, 100, 106, 194, 201, 209of Ailill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194of Cormac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83of Crimthann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106of Night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

deafness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 10, 18, 21–25,

49, 65–67, 91, 100, 103, 123, 125, 138, 143–144, 155, 157,159–160, 163, 166–168, 172–174, 184, 187, 189–192, 195,206, 208, 214, 221, 227–228, 231, 234–235lack of — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187sons of — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138threefold — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167tragic — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 91, 208violent — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

deḟid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58, 72deities

– of depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202— of journeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52demon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 34, 36, 44, 57, 65–66, 97,

137–139, 141–142, 144, 150–151, 168, 171— of lust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

god . . . . . . . . . 12, 15, 17, 23, 25, 30, 38–39, 47, 51–52,58, 72–73, 77, 93, 102, 110, 118, 122, 138, 168, 187, 194,

282 Index

199, 201, 206, 217ancient — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79British — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206Christian — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102chthonic — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30–31, 229earth- — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30–31elder — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 31exiled — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39godly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 118, 138–139, 141— of love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77— of the dead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Good God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38hero- — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25heroic — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15hidden — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Iranian — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23new — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31old — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 39Otherworld — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217strong — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58sun- —- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51–52war- — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110warrior — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

goddessearth- — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29eponymous — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Gaulish — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Good Goddess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202Mediterranean — of fate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Roman — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Deluge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64, 221–222, 231–232, 234deorad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104destiny . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 117, 164, 171–172, 183, 189, 229destruction 86, 97, 106, 122–123, 135, 150, 154–155, 163,

167–168, 172devil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 42, 193dharma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52–53, 55–56díberga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 142, 147dindṡenchas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix, 19,

33, 36, 44–46, 56, 59–60, 62, 64, 69, 71, 73–102, 104,109, 111, 125, 127, 129–131, 133, 135–137, 139, 141–155,164, 171, 175–176, 178, 181, 185, 190, 199–203, 208, 212,220, 234–236; see also place-lore

directionanticlockwise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164dextratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164lefthandwise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 160, 164–165righthandwise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 160, 163–165

divination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 10–11, 13, 86–87Doomsday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 73–74, 222dream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 85, 156, 158–159, 214druid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–13, 17, 29, 32, 46, 49,

55, 77, 79–83, 85–98, 100, 102, 105–107, 109–111, 115,117, 119, 149, 151, 154, 158–159, 175–176, 184, 190, 192,207–209, 214–215, 218, 225

drunkenness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27dumbness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227–228, 231–232dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52–53, 59, 94, 100–103, 107, 118

Eleusinian mysteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

enchantment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 148ἐπιδέξια . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164epithet . . 38, 47–48, 53, 58, 71–76, 92–93, 109, 113–114,

117, 131, 137–145, 147–153, 198eponym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 118, 150eros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii, 84–85, 88, 93, 201erus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–82, 89, 92–94, 98eulogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119, 123, 125–126exile 30–31, 34, 36, 39–42, 46, 99–101, 103–105, 109, 111,

116, 214

Fairy-mound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 31–34, 37, 39, 148, 165fáith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149, 228, 234faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 32, 41, 72, 123farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207, 209fate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 100, 103, 111, 160, 169, 200, 234father . . . 2–3, 22, 85, 87, 94, 100, 102, 106, 116, 140, 149,

158–159, 173, 179, 209, 211–212, 221feast 47, 59–60, 90, 133, 138–139, 143–144, 146–147, 156,

158, 167–168, 171, 205, 210feis Temro (feast of Tara) . . . . . . . . . . . . 59–60, 144, 158felmac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11festival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 59, 133, 143–144fíanna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 133, 143–144, 147, 153fidchell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19fidnemed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57–58fifth of Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 28, 34, 47, 109, 113, 215fili . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7–8,

11–12, 29, 31–32, 39, 58–60, 64, 71, 75–76, 90–91, 117,131, 145–146, 149, 158–159, 175–176, 178–181, 186, 190,207, 214, 218, 220, 226–228, 234–235

fire . . . 3, 12, 36, 95, 122–123, 156, 171, 190, 210, 214, 218fírfhlaith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 119–124, 233fírinne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120, 219, 232–233flame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 52, 54, 122Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220–221, 228, 231–236fochetal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 91fort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 20, 24, 33, 75, 86, 100, 160, 172fortifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 175fortress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 19–20, 24, 51, 145, 187foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 87, 108, 159, 211fosterbrothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163, 167fosterer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 158, 161, 163, 166, 209fruit 38, 44, 60, 63–64, 66–67, 75, 81, 83, 91, 95–96, 103,

113, 124–125— of immortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66fruitful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 103

funeral rites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Gáe gréine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223–224gealtacht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109geis . . . . . . . 87, 110, 115, 122, 155–157, 159–160, 163–169,

172–174; see also taboogiant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21–25, 40, 59, 61, 167, 177–178gift . . . . . . . 4, 46, 55, 70, 100, 115, 118, 125, 128, 133, 136,

141, 153, 177, 200, 218, 220, 224, 226–227Gnosticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 62, 65–68gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117, 200grave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 39, 41, 165, 177, 179, 206guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166–168, 171

General Index 283

Hag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19hagiography . . . . . . . . viii, 74, 92, 96, 98, 208–209, 223harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 125, 209hell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54hermit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104, 210, 213–214hero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 19–22, 24–25, 27, 36,

83, 92, 104, 115–116, 136–139, 141–142, 146, 150–151,154, 157, 163, 167–169, 173–174, 177, 185, 188–189, 206,208, 211–212, 225, 229, 231, 235curad-mír (hero’s portion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206heroic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15–16, 21, 73, 76, 141, 150–151heroine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Hinduism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184historian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95hospitality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 138, 147hostel . . 44, 50, 57, 122, 142, 155, 157, 159, 163, 165–169,

171–172, 175, 209–210hosteller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 171hunter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208hymn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 33, 51, 128, 164

Iερòς γάμος . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 111idol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 79, 107, 144, 175incest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188–189inheritance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 98Iomarbhagh na bhFileadh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118Iruntarinia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Judge 24, 28–29, 94, 97, 122–123, 126, 179, 220–221, 227judgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 44, 57, 73–74, 94, 208

Kenning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 71–74, 76, 84, 93, 146Kephalaia of the Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66king

high-king . . . . . . . . . . x, 46, 55, 71, 100–102, 107, 109,111, 121, 144, 208, 220

ideal king . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109, 114, 119, 126ideal reign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 124–126inaugural ceremony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155inauguration . . . . . . . . 47, 49, 51–52, 59, 96, 111, 118,

158, 161, 163, 166, 168, 214kingdom . . . . 2, 5, 51, 53, 103, 116, 144, 164, 169, 180kingship . . . . . . . . . . . ix, 51, 59–60, 99, 102–103, 113,

115–117, 119, 121, 123, 125, 157, 159–160, 172–173king of

— Annwfn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 185, 211— birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 159–160— Bréifne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97— the Clanna Dedad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17— Connacht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213— the Connachta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97— eastern world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101— Éle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214— Glendomuin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103— Heaven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118— Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115, 174, 208— Leinster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 102, 116— Leth Cuinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102— the Lunar dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52— the mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20— Munster . . . . . . . . . . 17, 59, 102–103, 163, 214–215

— Muscraige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214— Nemi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104— Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79— the sacred space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104— Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214— the síde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167, 171, 192, 210, 212— Srúb Brain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 146— Tara 45, 59, 95, 99, 106, 109, 116, 119, 122, 126, 147,157, 167, 174, 209— the Túatha Dé Danann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110— the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16–18, 21, 61

Kingdom of— Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174— Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

kinship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156kiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77, 81–86κλέος . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177knowledge . . 1–3, 5–13, 31–32, 49, 59, 65, 67, 71, 75, 90,

100, 103, 106, 111, 118, 121, 126–127, 139, 141, 146, 149,153, 155–160, 162, 164–166, 168, 170, 172–174, 177–179,184–186, 189–190, 193–195, 197, 200, 202, 214, 217–218, 220, 223–224, 226, 229–231, 233, 235–236lack of — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

kṣātriya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Law . . . . . . 11–12, 48, 51, 104, 106–108, 110, 114, 119, 121,124, 138–139, 144, 146–147, 149, 205, 207, 215, 220,224 ,227, 232–233, 235

lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 30, 55, 119, 167, 173leprechaun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32lightning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Loathsome Lady . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Lord of

— Annwfn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210— Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75— the whole earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52— the pole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Mac hui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152madness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 109, 149, 209, 213magi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7, 92, 97, 192maiden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 202–203malevolent

— beings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170— forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147— musician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144— names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171— qualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 210

Manichaeism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 59, 61, 63, 65–68marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 59, 101, 111, 114, 119mast . . . . 35, 81, 88, 94, 96, 124–126, 185, 206, 208, 213meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 205memory 31, 57, 107, 173, 175, 179, 181, 190, 221, 223–224,

228, 232metempsychosis . . . . . x, 6, 183–184, 187, 190, 228–229milk 34–35, 38, 44, 65, 81, 88, 91, 96, 124, 185, 207, 209,

213mirabilia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234monastery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64, 74, 96–97, 178, 209, 222monasticism 58, 67, 96, 98, 158, 180, 209, 217, 222, 234

284 Index

monster . . . . . . . . . viii, 15–16, 23, 25; see also creaturebeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 165, 186, 188–189, 192–193beast of prey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206beasts of Cerna(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 160clóenmíla of Cerna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165dragon . . . . . . . . . . 19, 23, 134–135, 149–150, 186–187

mother . . . . . . . 20, 39, 70, 73, 94, 159, 161, 173, 188–189,191, 212, 221

mound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31–33, 146, 177mushroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211мъıсль . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6–8myth . . . . . . . . . . . . viii, 15, 20, 23, 25, 39, 41, 45, 49–50,

54, 58, 67, 79, 85, 104, 139, 150, 156, 169, 173, 183–184,189, 195, 197, 199–203, 228–232, 234–236

Nnakednessnaked man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156–157naked youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

nemed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58nemeton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Neoplatonism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191, 193nephew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 211New Year’s Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164nut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 60, 92, 126, 214

— of knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 44, 65, 223, 232ogam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 90–91ὄγμος . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225Old Russian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3–13, 40one-eyedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172oracle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97–98, 177oral conception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189, 191Otherworld . . . . ix, 19, 27–28, 31–32, 41–42, 49, 62, 91,

100–101, 107, 111, 125, 142, 152–154, 156, 160, 164–169,171, 180, 189, 200, 202, 210–211, 215, 217, 224

outlaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104, 107–108, 110, 142, 151

Paganism . . . . . . . . viii, 4, 7, 11, 15, 27, 30, 38, 41–42, 45,59, 64, 67, 73, 80, 94, 97, 110, 123, 139, 142–144, 151, 177,185–186, 194–195, 206, 212Paradise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 61–63, 65–67, 125, 164Pelagians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192pentad . . . . . 28, 34, 43–44, 49, 51, 53–54, 57, 62, 64–65periphery . . . . . . . 46, 50, 79, 99, 104, 109, 136, 168–169,

173–174phantom . . . . . . . . 30, 90–91, 133, 139, 143, 147–148, 151,

153, 157φιλόσοφος . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225place-lore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44–45, 56, 62, 198, 235;

see also dindṡenchasplunder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 124, 142, 148plunderer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 133, 135, 142, 147, 150, 154plundering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 108poet . . . . . ix, 3–5, 7, 11–13, 28–29, 32, 58, 60, 64, 67, 71,

74–75, 90–91, 97, 116, 118, 128, 138, 145–146, 154, 171,176–180, 190, 214, 226–228, 234–235

poetically . ix, 1, 4–7, 9–13, 19, 57–58, 71, 73, 76, 91, 137,139–140, 146, 149, 152–153, 176–177, 224, 227–228

poetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii, 4, 7, 11, 13, 31, 48, 64,

67, 73, 75–76, 94, 114, 116, 127–128, 140, 142, 144–146,149–150, 152–153, 177, 180, 222

polylogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10, 18, 20, 22, 24–

25, 38, 41, 45, 49–50, 53, 55, 59, 70–72, 87, 90, 95–96,99–101, 103–104, 106, 109–111, 115, 120–122, 126, 153,159, 163–164, 168, 173–174, 177, 180, 186, 189–192, 195,202, 208, 210, 213–215, 228–229

pradakṣiṇa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164priest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4–5, 7, 12, 95, 104, 191prince . . . . . . . . 13, 18, 20, 23, 34, 45, 50, 72, 90, 99, 103,

114, 116, 122, 153princeps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 113prohibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 110, 156, 165–166, 174prophecy . . 91, 100, 117, 119, 171, 192, 212, 220, 222, 233prophet . . . . . . . . . 9–10, 38, 90, 221–222, 228–229, 234prophetess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–2, 5–6, 11, 100, 172pseudohistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 94Pythagorean doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183, 191Pythia of Delphi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Quarrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163, 194, 213–214queen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 101, 103, 115, 192Quran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Raid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 108, 176, 211, 235rājasūya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 158Ramayana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180rampart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 87rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 205reavers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 49, 151, 157–158, 172reincarnation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 183–185, 192–193remscél . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176, 184, 212retoiric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128–129; see also roscrevolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116rígdomna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 99, 101rígróit . . . 127–128, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144,

146, 148, 150, 152, 154rite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42, 49, 59, 78, 111, 164ritual . . . . . . . . . 10, 12, 44, 49, 51–52, 59, 64, 97–98, 107,

157–158, 163, 168, 175, 177, 199, 227river . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 124, 198–203, 230

— bed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199— creature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230— legends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203— name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 199, 201— serpent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203– source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203— -goddess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199–200

road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 51–52, 133, 135, 142, 145–148,150–152, 154–161, 163–174, 200, 210

crossroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157, 163, 166, 173–174five roads . . . . ix, 44, 47, 49, 51, 54–55, 114, 129, 131,

136, 160–161, 169high-road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135, 145, 161, 163Slige As(s)ail . . . . . . . . 46, 155–156, 160–161, 163, 170Slige Chúalann . . . . . . 46, 142, 148, 155–161, 163, 166,

168–170, 172–174Slige Dala . . . . . . . . . . 46, 129, 149–151, 153, 160–161

General Index 285

Slige Midlúachra . . . . . . . . 46, 144–146, 148, 155, 157,160–161, 165–166, 170

Slige Mór . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 152, 160rock of truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120–121rosc 10, 54, 93, 127–129, 131, 134–136, 138, 140–154, 192;

see also retoiricroscáth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75ruler . . . . . . . . . . 19–21, 52, 70, 72, 94, 108, 117, 119–120,

122–124, 141, 211–212, 215— of Dyfed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215— of Gwynedd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Sacred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix–x, 28–29, 42, 44,49–51, 57–59, 61–62, 64, 67–69, 72–73, 76, 78–79, 85,92, 96–98, 101, 104, 106–107, 111, 119, 140, 163–164,168, 173–175, 207, 211, 218, 231–232, 235— centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163, 168, 174— class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218— directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x— events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235— geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix— history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix, 235— kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix— landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61— marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 101, 111, 119— oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164— oracle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98— pentad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 64— primeval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68— royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59— site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96–97— space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104, 140— texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51— time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 175— tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 50, 57–58, 61, 67, 72–73— wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58— wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

sacrifice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 12, 43–44, 172, 200sacrificer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 52, 55sage 6, 32, 70–71, 73, 75, 126, 136, 146, 149, 153, 178–180,

186, 218, 221, 227Samain . . . . . . 45, 49, 59, 88, 99–100, 102, 135, 137, 139,

141–144, 147, 150–151, 153, 168, 175satire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190scholar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 80, 118, 175, 227, 236season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43–44, 124, 207sede . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 63, 233

— of Adam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233— of Conn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

σημα . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177senchas . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 60, 121, 153, 219–220, 233, 235servant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 49, 55, 147, 207shaman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 13, 88shamanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 88shapeshifting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 151, 158, 185shepherd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177, 208shepherdess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Shrovetide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147síabrai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110, 134, 148, 151, 153, 157

síd . . . . . . . . . . . ix, 27, 30–34, 38–39, 45–46, 49, 84–85,87, 90, 99–102, 106–107, 109, 111, 114–115, 117, 133,142–144, 147–148, 154, 158, 161, 165, 167, 169, 184, 186

sídaigi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 153silver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100single combat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25sirtya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41sister’s son . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74síthberga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132, 142, 147, 154sky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8–9, 52, 93, 122, 158slave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 55, 139, 147, 207–209slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 193society . . . viii, 1, 4, 51, 59, 67, 85, 101, 104, 107–108, 119,

128, 144, 175, 198–199, 205–207, 224solar wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Soma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 50, 198soul . . . . . ix, 4–6, 8–9, 13, 20, 54, 63, 177, 183–184, 186,

188–195, 226–227sovereign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 34, 113sovereignty 46, 100–101, 103–104, 106–111, 118, 120, 122spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133, 137, 223spell . . . . . 10, 19, 29, 71, 81–82, 88, 90–91, 142, 186, 190spirit . . . . 62, 102–103, 109, 139, 177, 186, 220, 222–223,

226–227, 229spirituality . . . . . . . . . . 9, 53, 55, 65–67, 95, 97, 105, 183spiritus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222stars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191status 21, 31, 34, 54, 57–58, 99, 101, 108, 111, 117, 121, 139,

141, 160, 173–174, 190, 197, 205, 211, 214–215, 221stone of division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59succession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 97, 116sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51–52, 61, 86–87, 174, 220, 223–224superhuman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 24–25, 28supernatural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii–ix, 15, 17,

19, 27–28, 31–33, 40–42, 49, 53–54, 59–61, 66, 79, 85,87–89, 91–92, 98–100, 102–104, 106–111, 114–116, 125,137, 141–143, 148–149, 151, 153–155, 157–160, 163–164,166–169, 172, 180, 188–190, 195, 206, 229, 234— abilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180, 190— abode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166— adversaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168— autochthones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40–41— being . . . . . viii, 27, 31, 79, 85, 89, 98, 104, 115, 141,

151, 167, 169, 172, 188— branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61— centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163— character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix, 91, 102, 143, 153, 195— dwelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85— enemies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155— entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88, 151— father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149— forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 137, 155, 157, 169— giants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40— gift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100— heroes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 49, 109— hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32— hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148— interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

286 Index

— knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 111, 189–190, 229— origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189— periphery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99— powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii, 59— pursuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143, 155— qualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 125— races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54— realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164— rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160— senility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53— shapeshifting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 158— side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109, 169— síthberga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142— situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114— status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190— support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 110— utterance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60— virtues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116— warriors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169— woman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 87, 103–104

sword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 67sword of knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67symbol . . . . . . . . . . viii, 4, 7–9, 13, 19, 28, 40, 47, 49–50,

54, 56–57, 59–60, 69, 72, 76–77, 84, 113, 118–119, 146,150, 158, 173, 179, 189–192, 207, 221, 235

symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163synthetic history . ix, 40, 47, 116, 118, 123, 217, 219, 221,

223, 225, 227, 229, 231, 233, 235

Taboo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 87, 110, 115, 156, 160,165, 174, 200, 202; see also geistairbfheis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157tapas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 56tarbfhlaith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120tellach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 75, 164Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126, 221terrors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135, 150–151, 154thunder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Titans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202totemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41travelling monks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180tree . . . . . . . 4, 6–9, 12, 41, 44, 58, 60–65, 67, 69–77, 79,

81–83, 85, 87–98, 124–125, 168, 214, 228, 231–232Bile Dathi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Bile hUissnig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Bile Tortan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 61, 75, 96, 232Bile Uisnig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Cróeb Daithi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61, 75Eó Mugna . . . . . . . . . 44, 57–58, 61, 63–65, 69–70, 74,

76, 94, 96, 114, 125, 190, 232Eó Ros(s)a . . . . . 44, 57–58, 61, 63–64, 69–76, 93–94,

125, 178, 231–232fall of — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64, 69piece of wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81–82, 90–92sacred wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72stave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–91timber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Tree of Brahman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Tree of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Tree of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 63, 75, 125

Tree of Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Tree of Paradise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61–62, 65–66tree of sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94trees of Darkness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66trees of death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66trees of Ireland . . . . . . . . . . 44, 57–58, 61–64, 67, 69,

71–72, 92–93trees of Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65–66woods of Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 81–82, 92, 94oak . . . 9, 69, 73, 94, 114, 164, 190, 200, 205–206, 208yew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Yggdrasil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

triadic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60triads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44tríath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121true reign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 126túath . . . . . . 40, 72, 75, 102, 104, 120–123, 135, 206–207túathchaech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171túathrámut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134tumulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31–32

Úatha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150–151, 154uncle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211unclean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66, 159undead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167Underworld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 30, 33, 104, 185universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 52, 71–72, 125, 197умъ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5–8

Vaiśya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54veretnik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 75вѣщiй . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 6вѣщии . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 11вѣщунъ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4vigilia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143vision . 6, 70, 81–83, 90, 98, 103, 167, 214, 218, 222–223visionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 83, 214волъсви . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110, 120, 122, 126, 168, 187, 211warlike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 48, 114, 150warring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143warrior . . . . . ix, 12–13, 16–17, 29, 32, 47–49, 55, 73, 75,

110, 114, 123, 131, 135, 142, 145, 148–150, 152, 154, 158,163–164, 167–169, 171, 175, 186–189, 200, 232

water . 19, 41, 71, 87, 96, 124, 159, 186, 188–192, 198–199,201–202, 230–232, 234, 236

wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71–72, 100wife . . . . . . . . . 18, 24–25, 29, 32, 39, 51, 60, 87, 125, 170,

172, 190, 200, 207, 209, 212, 214, 228— of Nechtan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200— of Pūṣan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51– of Senchán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214– of Tuathal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

wild man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171–172wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 143, 151, 171, 208wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 29, 187, 192winter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 10, 20, 65, 138, 147, 213

General Index 287

wisdom 6, 28–29, 31, 41, 47, 66–67, 94, 118–119, 123, 126,146, 159, 184–186, 195, 207–208, 212, 220, 222, 226

wizard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4–6, 8, 11, 13wonder . . x, 20, 40, 45–47, 63, 95, 99–100, 114–115, 118,

136, 142, 176, 218, 220, 233–234

wonderful 20, 38–39, 44, 49, 54, 65, 75, 87, 99, 128, 133,135, 144, 218, 231, 236

worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 97, 144

Zhou dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Oroitaranmanaib inna scribnidembocht

A.D.mmxiiii